What are the economic consequences of Brexit?

After all the uncertainty in the UK we will have some sort of progress in that we will have an election putting the voters at least briefly in charge. Whether that will solve things is open to debate but let us take a look at what the economic situation will be should the UK start to actually Brexit from the European Union. The NIESR has looked at it and the BBC has put it in dramatic terms.

Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal will leave the UK £70bn worse off than if it had remained in the EU, a study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has found.

That is a rather grand statement which fades a little if we read the actual report which starts like this.

The economic outlook is clouded by significant economic and political uncertainty and depends critically on the United Kingdom’s trading relationships after Brexit. Domestic economic weakness is further amplified by slowing global demand.

The latter is somewhere between very little and nothing to do with Brexit. We are in a situation where the 0.3% quarterly GDP growth declared by France this morning looks good in the circumstances.

This brings us to the first problem which is that the NIESR is predicting that sort of growth for the UK.

On the assumption that chronic uncertainty persists but the terms of EU trade remain unchanged, we forecast economic growth of under 1½ per cent in 2019 and 2020, though the forecast is subject to significant uncertainty.

So where is the loss? As it happens they have predicted 1.4% economic growth which is as fast as the economy supposedly can grow these days according to the Bank of England.

We think our economy can only grow at a new, lower speed limit of around one-and-a-half per cent a year. We also currently think actual demand is growing close to this speed limit. This means demand can’t grow faster than at its current pace without causing prices to start rising too quickly.

I am no great fan of this type of analysis but remember we are in the Ivory Tower Twilight Zone here. Now let us factor in the problems the Ivory Towers tell us about business investment.

Prior to the EU referendum, UK business investment growth was growing in line with average growth across the rest of the G7. Since then, it has risen by just 1% in the UK, compared to an average of 12% elsewhere……..DMP Survey data suggest that the level of nominal investment may be between 6%–14% lower than it would have been in the absence of Brexit uncertainties. ( Bank of England August Inflation Report)

So there is potentially quite a bit of business investment growth in the offing. How much? I do not know but it could quite easily be a sizeable swing. That view rather collides with the statement below from the NIESR.

We would not expect economic activity to be boosted by the approval of the government’s proposed Brexit deal. We estimate that, in the long run, the economy would be 3½ per cent smaller with the deal compared to continued EU membership.

So the business investment was not held back but lost forever?

They do however seem to have a rather extraordinary faith in the power of a 0.25% interest-rate cut.

In our main-case forecast scenario, economic conditions are set to continue roughly as they are, with output close to capacity but underlying growth remaining weak and well under its historic trend. Real wage growth is supporting consumer spending, but weak productivity growth means that the current pace of expansion may not be sustainable. Rising domestic cost pressures are offset to some extent by slower import price growth and CPI inflation is forecast to remain close to target. In line with our previous forecasts, fiscal policy is being loosened. This, together with an expected cut in Bank Rate next year, is supporting economic growth in the near term.

Odd that because surely we would not be here if interest-rate cuts had that sort of effect. Looser fiscal policy does seem to be on the cards whatever government we get next and the rising real wages point is interesting as it means they are not expecting a fall on the value of the UK Pound £.

Also there is very little there which is anything to do with Brexit at all. I note that they have no idea what inflation will do so they simply say it will be in line with its target. Indeed

underlying growth remaining weak and well under its historic trend.

is where we are these days and economic growth being supported by fiscal policy makes us sound the same as France which last time I checked is not Brexiting at all.

Finally we do get to a proposed loss.

Compared to our main-case forecast, uncertainty would be lifted but customs and regulatory barriers would hinder goods and services trade with the continent, leaving all regions of the United Kingdom worse off than they would be if the UK stayed in the EU.

Now we have it! There is of course an element of truth here as there are gains from being in the Single Market. But the reality is that we do not yet know what out future relationship will be and even more importantly how economic agents will respond to it.

Bank of England

There were some extraordinary reports last night emanating from ITV’s Robert Peston. I think that Robert is desperate for attention but as the son of a Labour Peer he is extremely well connected to say the least. So let us note this.

I’ve been aware for some time that the prime minister and chancellor have a preferred candidate to be next governor of the Bank of England – and it is none of the five who were interviewed a few weeks ago (Cunliffe, Bailey, Broadbent, Vadera, Shafik) and passed the the competence threshold.

If the competence threshold was one passed by Nemat Shafik then even the world’s best limbo dancer must be unable to get under it. For newer readers she was made a Dame and put in charge of the LSE to cover up her early exit from the Bank of England which happened because she was out of her depth. Indeed is she is in play then this suggestion would at least give us a laugh.

It’s….Rebekah Vardy.

Actually matters got more complex as the issue of whether it was appropriate now was raised and the issue of any likely international candidate (Raghuram Rajan )was raised. Then there were the possible political style appointments which Robert ignored presumably on the grounds that it was fine when the current incumbent espoused views with Robert himself might have made but might be something rather inconvenient looking forwards.

Comment

We find as so often that what is presented as fact has strong elements of opinion attached to it. In economics that is driven by the assumptions made in any economic modelling which are usually more powerful than actual events. An example of this was provided by the UK Office for Budget Responsibility back in 2010. It predicted we would now have Gilt yields of 5% and would have seen wage growth at the same level for some time. In reality we have a 50 year yield o just over 1.1% and wage growth has maybe made 4% for a bit after years of way under-performance. On that road 3.5% GDP growth starts to look more like a rounding error. So will there be an effect? Yes as we adjust, but after that it will be swamped by other developments.

Returning to the role of Bank of England Governor then perhaps Mark Carney just like QE and low/negative interest-rates may be to infinity and beyond! Perhaps a daily extension this time around?

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts on the IFS Green Budget for the UK

Today we find that the news flow has crossed one of the major themes that I have established on here. It is something we looked at yesterday as we mulled the debt and deficit issues in Japan where the new “consensus” on public finances has been met by Japan doing the reverse. So let me take you to the headlines from the Institute for Fiscal Studies for the UK.

A decade after the financial crisis, the deficit has been returned to normal levels, but debt is at a historical high. The latest estimate for borrowing in 2018–19, at 1.9%
of national income, is at its long-run historical average. However, higher borrowing during the crisis and since has left a mark on debt, which stood at 82% of national
income, more than twice its pre-crisis level.

There are several issues already of which the first is the use of “national income” as they switch to GDP later. Next concepts such as the one below are frankly quite meaningless in the credit crunch era as so much has changed.

at its long-run historical average

This issue gets worse if we switch from the numbers above which are a very UK style way oh looking at things and use more of an international standard.

general government deficit (or net borrowing) was £41.5 billion in the FYE March 2019, equivalent to 1.9% of GDP

general government gross debt was £1,821.9 billion at the end of the FYE March 2019, equivalent to 85.3% of GDP…  ( UK ONS)

As you can see the deficit is the same but the national debt is higher. In terms of the Maastricht Stability and Growth Pact we are within the fiscal deficit limit by 1.1% but 25.3% over the national debt to GDP target.

What will happen next?

The IFS thinks this.

Given welcome changes to student loan accounting, the spending increases announced at the September Spending Round, and a likely growth downgrade (even assuming a smooth Brexit), borrowing in 2019–20 could be around
£55 billion, and still at £52 billion next year. Those figures are respectively £26 billion and £31 billion more than the OBR’s March 2019 forecast. Both exceed 2% of national
income.

It is hard not to have a wry smile at the way my first rule of OBR ( Office for Budget Responsibility) Club which is that it is always wrong! You will not get that from the IFS which lives in an illusion where the forecasts are not unlike a Holy Grail. Next comes the way that the changes to student loans are used to raise the number. If we step back we are in fact acknowledging reality as there was an issue here all along it is just that we are measuring it now. So it is something we should welcome and not worry too much about. This year has seen growth downgrades in lots of countries and locales as we have seen this morning from the Bank of Italy but of course the IFS are entitled to their view on the consequences of any Brexit.

Next the IFS which has in general given the impression of being in favour of more government spending seems maybe not so sure.

A fiscal giveaway beyond the one announced in the September Spending Round could increase borrowing above its historical average over the next five years.
With a permanent fiscal giveaway of 1% of national income (£22 billion in today’s terms), borrowing would reach a peak of 2.8% of GDP in 2022–23 under a smooth-Brexit
scenario, and headline debt would no longer be falling.

Actually assuming they are correct which on the track record of such forecasts is unlikely then we would for example still be within the Maastricht rules albeit only just. You may note that a swerve has been slipped in which is this.

headline debt would no longer be falling

As an absolute amount it is not falling but relatively it has been as this from the latest official Public Finances bulletin tells us.

Debt (public sector net debt excluding public sector banks, PSND ex) at the end of August 2019 was £1,779.9 billion (or 80.9% of gross domestic product, GDP), an increase of £24.5 billion (or a decrease of 1.5 percentage points of GDP) on August 2018.

Next if we use the IFS view on Brexit then this is the view and I note we have switched away from GDP to national income as it continues a type of hokey-cokey in this area.

Even under a relatively orderly no-deal scenario, and with a permanent fiscal loosening of 1% of national income, the deficit would likely rise to over 4% of national income in 2021–22 and debt would climb to almost 90% of national income for the first time since the mid 1960s. Some fiscal tightening – that is, more austerity – would likely be required in subsequent years in order to keep debt on a sustainable path.

The keep debt on a sustainable path is at best a dubious statement so let me explain why.

It is so cheap to borrow

As we stand the UK fifty-year Gilt yield is 0.85% and the ten-year is 0.44% and in this “new world” the analysis above simply does not stand up. Actually if we go to page six of the report it does cover it.

Despite this doubling of net debt, the government’s debt interest bill has remained flat in real terms as the recorded cost of government borrowing has fallen. As shown in Figure 4.3, in 2018–19, when public sector net debt exceeded 80% of national income, spending on debt interest was 1.8% of national income, or £37.5 billion in nominal terms. Compare this with 2007–08, when public sector net debt was below 40% of national income but spending on debt interest was actually higher as a share of national income, at 2.0%.

As you can see we are in fact paying less as in spite of the higher volume of debt it is so cheap to run. Assuming Gilt yields stay at these sort of levels that trend will continue because as each Gilt matures it will be refinanced more cheaply. Let me give you an example of this as on the 7th of last month a UK Gilt worth just under £29 billion matured and it had a coupon or interest-rate of 3.5%. That will likely be replaced by something yielding more like 0.5% so in round numbers we save £870 million a year. A back of an envelope calculation but you get the idea of a process that has been happening for some years. It takes place in chunks as there was one in July but the next is not due until March.

The role of the Bank of England

Next comes the role of the Bank of England which has bought some £435 billion of UK debt which means as we stand it is effectively interest-free. To be more specific it gets paid the debt interest and later refunds it to HM Treasury. As the amount looks ever more permanent I think we need to look at an analysis of what difference that makes. Because as I look at the world the amount of QE bond buying only seems to increase as the one country that tried to reverse course the United States seems set to rub that out and the Euro area has announced a restart of it.

Indeed there are roads forwards where the Bank of England will engage in more QE and make that debt effectively free as well.

There are two nuances to this. If we start with the “QE to infinity” theme I do nor agree with it but it does look the most likely reality. Also the way this is expressed in the public finances is a shambles as only what is called “entrepreneurial income” is counted and those of you who recall my £2 billion challenge to the July numbers may like to know that our official statisticians have failed to come up with any answer to my enquiry.

Comment

I have covered a fair bit of ground today. But a fundamental point is that the way we look at the national debt needs to change with reality and not stay plugged in 2010. Do I think we can borrow for ever? No. But it is also true that with yields at such levels we can borrow very cheaply and if we look around the world seem set to do so. I have written before that we should be taking as much advantage of this as we can.

https://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com/2019/06/27/the-uk-should-issue-a-100-year-bond-gilt/

Gilt yields may get even lower and head to zero but I have seen them at 15% and compared to that we are far from the literal middle of the road but in line with their biggest hit.

Ooh wee, chirpy chirpy cheep cheep
Chirpy chirpy cheep cheep chirp

The caveat here is that I have ignored our index-linked borrowing but let me offer some advice on this too. At these levels for conventional yields I see little or no point in running the risk of issuing index-linked Gilts.

What is the UK economic situation and outlook?

The UK is an example of so much going on in some areas albeit with so far no result but apparently not much in others. The latter category includes the real economy if the latest set of Markit PMI business surveys are any guide.

UK service providers indicated that business activity growth lost momentum during August and remained subdued in comparison to the trends seen over much of the past decade. The latest survey also revealed slower increases in new work and staffing levels, which was often linked to sluggish underlying economic conditions.

The slowing of the services sector added to contracting manufacturing and construction sectors to give us this overall result.

At 49.7 in August, the seasonally adjusted All Sector Output
Index dropped from 50.3 in July and registered below the
50.0 no-change mark for the second time in the past three
months……….t, the lack of any meaningful growth in the service sector raises the likelihood that the UK economy is slipping into recession. The PMI surveys are so far indicating a 0.1% contraction of GDP in the third quarter.

There are two elements of context here. The first is that this survey is not accurate enough to tell to 0.1% or to say 49.7 is any different to unchanged. Also we now that as a sentiment index it had a bit of a shocker during the last period of political turmoil in late summer 2016. Thus our conclusion is that the economy is weak and struggling but contracting? We do not yet know.

Car Registrations

There was some interesting news here summarised by Samuel Tombs of Pantheon.

Good news – car registrations were strong in August. The 1.7% y/y drop is consistent with a big seasonally-adjusted m/m% rise, as sales in Aug 2018 jumped ahead of new emissions testing rules. This points to car sales boosting q/q% GDP growth by a non-trivial 0.05pp in Q3.

So whilst the numbers were down on last year they were a solid improvement on July.

A Fiscal Boost

In perhaps the least surprising development this year the Chancellor Sajid Javid announced this yesterday.

The Chancellor has announced an increase in spending on public services for next year. Day-to-day spending on public services will grow by 4.1%, or around £13.8 billion, between 2019−20 and 2020−21 in real terms. This represents of a top-up of £11.7 billion to the provisional spending plans Mr Javid inherited from his predecessor, alongside a £1.7 billion top up to existing capital spending plans for 2020−21, meaning that total spending will be £13.4 billion higher next year than was planned in the spring. ( IFS )

If we switch to GDP as our measure then the planned increases were of the order of 0.6%. As we borrowed 1.1% of GDP in the fiscal year to March that points at 1.7% although as we were already spending more maybe more towards 2% of GDP. That is a little awkward for the Institute of Fiscal Studies which told us over the weekend the fiscal rules would be broken. Mind you as nobody else cares about them it is not that big a deal. Also the IFS seems quite keen on fantasies.

Making major spending decisions without the latest economic and fiscal forecasts is a risky move for the Chancellor. On the basis of forecasts from the spring, extra borrowing to fund today’s announcements could – just – be accommodated within the government’s fiscal targets. But the next set of forecasts from the OBR, due later this year, are likely to reflect a deterioration in the near-term outlook for the UK economy and public finances.

Just as a reminder the first rule of OBR club is that the OBR is always wrong. How has the IFS not spotted this? Mind you their head Paul Johnson was enthusiastically plugging the RPI news yesterday hoping that his 2015 Inflation Review might get pulled out the recycling bin and that it might have 17% of it made up of fantasy rents.

After all that I am not sure we can trust their view on austerity but for what it;s worth here it is.

This is enough to reverse around two thirds of the real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services – at least on average – since 2010, and around one third of the cuts to per capita spending.

Bank of England

Governor Carney was giving evidence to Parliament yesterday and it included this.

The negative impact of a no-deal Brexit will not be as severe as originally thought because of improved planning by the government, businesses and the financial sector, the Bank of England has said.

Governor Mark Carney told the Treasury select committee that the Bank now believes GDP will fall by 5.5% in the worst-case scenario following a no-deal Brexit – less than the 8% contraction it predicted in last November.

The Bank’s revised assessment of the possible scenarios also says unemployment could increase by 7% and inflation may peak at 5.25% if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. ( Sky News )

Who could possibly have though that people and businesses would plan ahead? Of course when your own Forward Guidance has been so woeful maybe you have something of a block on that sort of thing. Also if I was Governor Carney I would have avoided all mention of a 7% Unemployment Rate after the 2013 Forward Guidance debacle on that subject.

Perhaps this is why some want to delay Brexit because in 2/3 years time at the current rate of progress the Bank of England will be forecasting growth from a No-Deal.

Also although he does not put it like that in the quote below is a confession that I am right about how falls in the Pound £ impact inflation.

It is likely that food bills will rise in the event of a no-deal Brexit, that is almost exclusively because of the exchange rate impact. Movements are quickly translated onto the shop shelf, and domestic prices, imperfect substitutes, also increase. That impact has lessened because of the new tariff regime the government has put in place.

Another goal I have slipped past their legion of Ivory Tower economists.

There was something else that was really odd from him via Bloomberg.

Mark Carney says there’s almost no chance of the Bank of England intervening in the foreign-exchange market to control swings in the pound

So why has the UK been building up its foreign exchange reserves then? They are now £66.8 billion.

Comment

The UK economy has been remarkably resilient in 2019 so far. We have had all sorts of Brexit and non-Brexit plans, the trade war and much else. Somehow we have got by. Financial markets are in flux as no sooner had the Financial Times started to cheer the way the UK Pound £ fell below US $1.20 it reversed and is now above US $1.23.

The FT has a problem because 1% moves lower in the UK Pound £ are a plunge and yet the 9% fall in the 2068 Index-Linked Gilt yesterday was described like this by economics editor Chris Giles.

Price of the 2068 index-linked gilt dropped today, but complete stability in market and prices still higher than a month ago – – showing those who claimed changing the RPI would kill the market to have exagerated wildly

I will ignore the second straw(wo)man bit and simply point out it has now fallen 13%. The losers will not be the “Gnomes of Zurich” as Chris claimed at the Royal Statistical Society but the ordinary pensioner looking for safety. It gives us a new definition for “complete stability” in my financial lexicon for these times.

The Investing Channel

The Bank of England and Mark Carney are in denial mode

One of the features of the Brexit debate has been the role of the Bank of England in it. One thing that a supposedly independent central bank should do is avoid being accused of being on one side or the other of political debates. Also it has presented a view which is supposedly supported by the whole institution when with such a split nation that seems incredibly implausible. Thus the alternative view of independence and the reason for having external members, which is to provide different perspectives and emphasis, looks troubled at best.

On this road we see an organisation where all the Deputy-Governors are alumni of Her Majesty’s Treasury, which raises the issue of establishment capture. Also this from the Bank of England website suggests the use of another form of motivation to capture individuals.

Dr Ben Broadbent became Deputy Governor on 1 July 2014. Prior to that, he was an external member of the Monetary Policy Committee from 1 June 2011.

I am far from alone in thinking that this sets up all the wrong motivations and strengthens the power of the Governor via patronage. As to appointment of the absent-minded professor maybe one day he will demonstrate why unless of course we already know.

For the decade prior to his appointment to the MPC, Dr Broadbent was Senior European Economist at Goldman Sachs,

Mervyn King

There is something of an irony in the way that any sort of flicker of Bank of England comes from the former Governor the now Baron King of Lothbury although Bloomberg describe him without his new title.

Mervyn King, a professor at the New York University Stern School of Business,

If we move to his critique here are the details.

It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank’s latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10 percent of GDP.

Why is this wrong?

Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible. On this I concur with Paul Krugman. He’s no friend of Brexit and believes that Britain would be better off inside the EU — but on the claim of lower productivity, he describes the Bank’s estimates as “black box numbers” that are “dubious” and “questionable.” And on the claim of semi-permanent dislocation, he just says, “Really?” I agree: The British civil service may not be perfect, but it surely isn’t as bad as that.

The productivity issue is one that has been addressed at the Treasury Select Committee ( TSC) this morning. As I listened I heard Deputy Governor Broadbent tell us that productivity has been falling which is true but when it came to a rationale for further Brexit driven effects we got only waffle. Actually the Chair of the TSC Nicky Morgan was much more impressive by discussing the oil price shock of the 1970s as opposed to Ben Broadbent’s New Zealand based example from the same decade. Later questions on this subject had both the Governor and Ben Broadbent in retreat on the issue of how useful an example New Zealand will be especially as it coincided with a large oil price shock.

There are different arguments as to how long any Brexit effect would last. However one would expect at least some of the issues to decline and go away.

Bank of England evidence

If we move to this morning;s questions posed to the Bank of England there has been a clear attempt by Governor Carney to cover off the fire he is under with two methodologies.

  1. To say the Treasury Select Committee asked for the production of scenarios.
  2. To present it as a technocratic and scientific process where we were told 160 people were involved and 600, measurements were taken. We were guided towards some elasticities where the range was presented between 0.75 and 0.16 and told that 0.25 had been chosen.

He has a point with the first issue because they did do that when it would have been better to have asked the Office for Budget Responsibility. After all as it has been drawn from the same establishment base it would have been likely to have given similar answers if that was the purpose and kept the Bank of England out of it. The second argument is very weak as anyone familiar with the methodology knows that economic models depend more on the assumptions used than anything else. You do not need to know much about them to realise that they are an art form much more than they are a science. Usually of course a bad art form.

Next up was Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe who has spent a career at HM Treasury as well as this described from the Bank of England website.

Before joining the Bank, Jon was the UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, effective from 9 January 2012.

When quizzed on this he told us this was in the past but a mere ten minutes later he was boasting about his experience. Sadly the inconsistency remained unchallenged as did his assertion that the higher cost of doing financial services business in Frankfurt as opposed to London was not going to be a major factor.

The issue of making this accessible came up with an MP just asking “I am looking for human speak” which added to a previous request for Governor Carney to talk like a human being rather than like an economist. This did not go especially well and to my mind left the interventions of the absent-minded professor as mostly waffle.

Sadly this from the Governor was not challenged though.

We are delivering price stability

Since inflation has been above its 2% per annum target for 18 months that is open to quite a bit of debate! That is before we get to the deeper issue of a 2% inflation target not being the price stability but is spun as. Also if we reflect that reality then one may be troubled by the next bit.

We will deliver financial stability.

Comment

There is a fair bit to consider here and as ever I do my best to avoid the politics and cover what has been said as accurately as I can as there is no official transcript yet. But let me return to an issue I raised last Thursday about the scenario where the Bank of England raises Bank Rate to 5.5% and other interest-rates go even higher.

BOE informing the masses. Carney tells that its controversial projection of Bank Rate going up to 5.5% on disorderly Brexit is mechanistic – a calculation from “a sum of squared deviations of inflation from target and output from potential.” Capiche? ( @DavidRobinson2k )

Nobody seems to have told the “squared deviations” that we are dealing with people who have consistently ignored deviations in inflation above target. Apparently though this is a complete success.

Carney adds that there was “a simpler, less-successful time”, when the Bank only focused on inflation…and we know how that turned out [it led to the financial crisis!].

That’s why we now have a financial policy committee to guard the economy, and that’s why the banks are ready for Brexit, the governor explains: ( The Guardian )

 

 

What is going on at the Bank of England these days?

Yesterday saw the publication of Brexit forecasts from HM Treasury and the Bank of England. The former was always going to be politically driven but the Bank of England is supposed to be independent, although these days we have to ask independent of what? There is little sign of that to be seen. Let us take a look at the Bank of England scenarios.

The estimated paths for GDP, CPI inflation and unemployment in the Economic Partnership scenarios are
shown in Charts A, B and C. The range reflects the sensitivity to the key assumptions about the extent to
which trade barriers rise, and how rapidly uncertainty declines. GDP is between 1¼% and 3¾% lower than
the May 2016 trend by end-2023. Relative to the November 2018 Inflation Report projection, by end-2023 it is 1¾% higher in the Close scenario, and ¾% lower in the Less Close scenario.

After singing its own fingers last time around it is calling these scenarios rather than forecasts but pretty much everyone is ignoring that. The problem with this sort of thing is that you end up doing things the other way around. Frankly the answers are decided and then the assumptions are picked to get you there. We do know some things.

Productivity growth has slowed, sterling has depreciated and the increase in inflation has squeezed real incomes.

However really the most certainty we have is about the middle part of a lower UK Pound £ and even there the Bank of England seems to omit its own part ( Bank Rate cut and Sledgehammer QE ) in the fall. That caused the fall in real incomes as we see how policy affected the results.

If we move wider the Bank of England attracted fire from both sides as for example this is from the former Monetary Policy Committee member Andrew Sentance who is a remain supporter.

The reputation of economic forecasts has taken a bad blow today with both UK government and appearing to use forecasts to support political objectives. Let’s debate – which I strongly oppose – rationally without recourse to bogus forecasts.

Why would he think that?

Well take a look at this.

The estimated paths for GDP, CPI inflation and unemployment in the disruptive and disorderly scenarios
are shown in Charts A, B and C. GDP is between 7¾% and 10½% lower than the May 2016 trend by end 2023.
Relative to the November 2018 Inflation Report projection, GDP is between 4¾% and 7¾% lower by
end-2023. This is accompanied by a rise in unemployment to between 5¾% and 7½%. Inflation in these
scenarios then rises to between 4¼% and 6½%.

It is the latter point about inflation and a claimed implication of it I wish to subject to both analysis and number-crunching.

How would the Bank of England respond to higher inflation?

Here is the claimed response.

Monetary policy responds mechanically to balance deviations of inflation from target and output
relative to potential. Bank Rate rises to 5.5%.

Let us see how monetary policy last responded to an expected deviation of inflation above target to back this up.

This package comprises:  a 25 basis point cut in Bank Rate to 0.25%; a new Term Funding Scheme to reinforce the pass-through of the cut in Bank Rate; the purchase of up to £10 billion of UK corporate bonds; and an expansion of the asset purchase scheme for UK government bonds of £60 billion, taking the total stock of these asset purchases to £435 billion.

As you can see the mechanical response seems to be missing! Unless of course you count the mechanical response of the mind of Mark Carney as he panicked thinking the UK was going into recession. The other 8 either panicked too or meekly fell in line. The point is further highlighted if we look at the scenario assumed for the exchange-rate of the UK Pound £.

And as the sterling risk premium increases, sterling falls by 25%, in addition to the 9% it has already fallen
since the May 2016 Inflation Report.

Let us examine the reaction function. Let us say that the £ had fallen by 10% when the Bank of England took action then if it ” responds mechanically” we would expect this time around to see a 0.625% reduction in Bank Rate and some £150 billion of extra QE as well as another Term Funding Scheme bank subsidy of over £300 billion.

Instead we are expected to believe that the Bank of England would raise and not cut interest-rates and would do so by 4.75%! There is also an issue with the timing as the forward guidance of the Bank of England has been for Bank Rate rises for over 4 years now and we have had precisely 0.25% in net terms. So at the current rate of progress the interest-rate increases would be complete somewhere around the turn of the century.

Actually there is more because other interest-rates would go even higher it would appear.

Uncertainty about institutional credibility leads to a pronounced increase in risk premia on sterling
assets, including a 100bps increase in the term premium on gilts.

So an extra 1% on Gilt yields although this is only related to a particular piece of theory as we skip what they would be apart from an implication of maybe 6.5%. A particular catch in that is the current ten-year yield is a mere 1.33% and over the past 24 hours it has been falling adding to the previous falls I have been reporting for a while now. Markets do of course move in the wrong direction at times but Gilt investors seem to be placing their bets on the Gilt market and ignoring the Bank of England scenario.

But wait there is more.

Overall, interest rates on loans to households and businesses rise by 250bps more than Bank Rate.

Can this sort of thing happen? Yes as we saw it in the build up to the credit crunch as UK interest-rates disconnected from Bank Rate by around 2%. Also yesterday we were noting such a thing via the fact that Unicredit of Italy has found itself paying 7.83% on a bond which was yielding only 1% as recently as yesterday. But there are two main problems of which the first occurred on Mark Carney’s watch as we note that they way he “responds mechanically” to such developments is to sing along with MARRS.

Pump up the volume
Pump up the volume
Pump up the volume
Get down

Actually such a response by the Bank of England was typical before the advent of Governor Carney. Recall this?

For instance, during the financial crisis the exchange rate
depreciated around 30% initially but settled to be around 25% below its pre-crisis peak in the following
couple of years.

So in a broad sweep in line with the new worst case scenario especially as we recall that inflation went above 5% on both main measures. So Bank Rate went to 5.5%? Er now it was slashed by over 4% to 0.5% and we saw the advent of QE that eventually rose in that phase to £375 billion.

Comment

The first comment was provided by financial markets as we have already noted the Gilt market rally which was accompanied by the UK Pound £ rallying above US $1.28. The UK FTSE 100 did fall but only by 13 points. If there is anything a Bank of England Governor would hate it is being ignored.

Actually the timing was bad too. For some reason the report was delayed from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm but due to yet another problem it was another ten minutes late. This means that very quickly eyes turned to this by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Stocks ripped higher on Wednesday after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said interest rates are close to neutral, a change in tone from remarks the central bank chief made nearly two months ago. ( CNBC )

Roughly that seems to take 0.5% off the expected path of US interest-rates and has led to the US ten-year Treasury Note yield falling back to 3%. Also trying to convince people about higher inflation is not so easy when the oil price ( WTI) falls below US $50.

Me on Core Finance TV

 

 

 

 

 

What are the economic implications of Brexit?

Today there can only be one subject although as ever I will avoid the politics as much as is possible. Anyway at the current rate of progress anything on that subject would be out of date before I finished typing! At least in a world where the Brexit Secretary resigns over the Brexit deal. What exactly has he been doing these last few months? Let us move onto what is the debate over the economics and look at the outlook published by the International Monetary Fund or IMF yesterday.

IMF

The background is something that we are hearing from many establishments and central banks these days.

Moderate growth of just above 1½ percent is projected for the coming years, conditional on reaching a broad free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU and a smooth Brexit process.

Obviously the second part of the sentence is specific to the UK but both the Bank of England with its “speed limit” and the European Central Bank or ECB have been hammering out this bear. As ever the problem is how we got here? After all both central banks have indulged in monetary easing on a grand scale involving large interest-rate cuts, QE and credit easing. Yet the future is apparently not as bright as they promised. In essence we in Europe have a future that is a bit better than the past trajectory of Italy as we note that such views only cover what Chic called “Good Times” and mostly ignores recessions and setbacks.

The view from Tokyo is even worse where expanding the balance sheet of the Bank of Japan to more than 100% of GDP has led to the speed limit being between 0.5% and 1%. Is that the next step? Because if so a lot harder questions need to be asked about the way that central banks have been allowed to operate as borrowing from Peter to pay Paul has not gone anything like as well as they have claimed.

IMF View

Here is their base view on a no-deal Brexit.

On the downside, reverting to WTO trade rules, even in an orderly manner, would lead to long-run output losses for the UK of around 5 to 8 percent of GDP compared to a no-Brexit scenario. This is because of higher tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, lower migration, and reduced foreign direct investment.

The issue with that style of analysis is that in the long-run many things will change and we simply do not know what they will be. For example the UK would likely end up with higher trade tariffs with the European Union but might cut them elsewhere. Initially one would expect foreign investment to be lower due to the uncertainty but as time passes the UK may make moves – for example a mooted reduction in Corporation Tax – to offset that. Lower migration is the most likely to continue although as we have until now had little control over our borders it seems set to be driven by demand with fewer people wanting to come.

The IMF has a worse scenario for a disorderly situation.

A worst-case scenario would be a disorderly exit from the EU without an implementation period. In such a scenario, a sudden shift in investors’ preference for UK assets could lead to a sharp fall in asset prices and a hit to consumer and business confidence, which in turn would have adverse
impact on the balance sheets of households, firms and financial intermediaries. Sterling would depreciate further, raising domestic prices and affecting households’ real income and consumption. A disorderly exit is likely to lead to widespread disruptions in production and
services.

If we pick our way through this we open with what is mostly a euphemism for house prices which are of course supposed to be already falling. In fact I though and indeed hoped we would see a fall as they are too high but if we take yesterday’s official data we see that they were rising at an annual rate of 3.5% in September. One asset price that is surging today is the UK Gilt market where the long gilt future has risen over one point and the ten-year yield has fallen from 1.5% to 1.38%. As we have political turmoil right now and a disorderly departure is thus more likely this is awkward for the IMF. Of course the driving force in my opinion is investors seeing through the rather transparent “Forward Guidance” of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and expectations of him pressing on his control P button. Last time around his “Sledgehammer QE” drove the ten-year Gilt yield as low as 0.5% so you can see what punters, excuse me investors may be thinking of.

If we move onto business investment then the IMF finds much firmer ground under its feet basically because of this. From last Friday’s GDP release by the Office for National Statistics.

being partially offset by a fall of 1.2% in early estimates of business investment.

The issue around consumer confidence is more complicated as some issues remain here as the IMF hints at.

At 8.1 percent yoy in August, consumer credit growth remains high relative to income growth.

What would happen to sterling? Well this morning;s circa two cent fall versus the US Dollar gives backing to the IMF view but of course we are already considerably lower than we were. So I do not expect a similar move unless there is a complete calamity. That brings in the trade issue where a calamity would mean trade at the ports and airports grinding to a halt. In the political shambles we are living through that is of course possible but you would think both sides would move heaven and earth to avoid it.

Comment

As you can see there is some solid backing for the IMF view but also more than a few areas which are debatable. To be fair it does hint at one of these itself.

New trade arrangements with countries outside the EU could offset some of losses on trade with the EU over the long run.

The exact balance is simply unknowable. For example in the short-term one would expect trade in goods and services to be affected but over time new products and methods will apply. Philosophically this type of steady-state analysis will always look bad because any change on this scale will have dislocations but any possible benefits are for the future and are therefore unpredictable. Indeed there is always a lot of doubt about such matters. Let me illustrate this with something from the IMF as recently as July 4th on the subject of Germany.

In the first quarter of 2018, growth slowed to 0.3 percent (qoq), reflecting a normal correction following unusually strong growth in late 2017 and temporary factors (strikes, a particularly nasty flu outbreak, and early Easter holidays).

Is the flu outbreak ongoing as we mull this from the German statistics office yesterday?

The Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) reports that, in the third quarter of 2018, the gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 0.2% on the second quarter of 2018 after adjustment for price, seasonal and calendar variations. This was the first decline recorded in a quarter-on-quarter comparison since the first quarter of 2015.

That reduced the annual rate of GDP growth to 1.1% or half of what the IMF forecast for this year (2.2%) and pretty much half of what was forecast for next year (2.1%).

Next let me move to the UK consumer which I have dodged so far and maybe the most unpredictable of all. The reason for this is it is entwined with Bank of England policy and the IMF did its best to rewrite history tucked away in its report.

Mortgage rates are at record low levels in part due to intense bank competition.

After all the Bank of England moves to reduce mortgage rates ( remember its own research suggested a nearly 2% fall in them due to the Funding for Lending Scheme on its own) that is breathtaking! Any “intense bank competition” has been driven by the policy of “the spice must flow” to the banks.

Which brings me to my next suggestion which is the surge in the UK Gilt market is in my opinion due to it rejecting the Forward Guidance of “limited but gradual interest-rate rises” of Mark Carney and the Bank of England. Instead expectations of Sledgehammer QE 2.0 which if you recall in its madness drove the ten-year Gilt yield to 0.5% seem to be at play. Perhaps a Bank Rate cut to what after all is the “emergency” rate of 0.5% too.

So how do you think the UK consumer would respond now?

Number Crunching 

Is everything 1.5% these days? From the IMF about UK Bank Rate.

The nominal policy rate is still below the Fund staff’s estimated neutral rate of about 1½ percent

 

 

Will UK house prices fall by 35% and is that a good thing?

Yesterday the Governor of the Bank of England attended the UK Cabinet meeting to update them on what the Bank thinks about the potential post Brexit economic situation. Typically the main area focused on has been house prices which of course is revealing in itself. Let us take a look at how this has been reflected in the Bank’s house journal otherwise known as the Financial Times.

Mark Carney, Bank of England governor, has delivered a “chilling” warning to Theresa May’s cabinet that a no-deal Brexit could lead to economic chaos, including a property crash that could see house prices fall by a third.

I pointed out on social media that whilst the journalists at the FT might find such a fall in house prices “chilling” first-time buyers would welcome it. Maybe they might start to find a few places to be affordable. So they might well welcome the fact that the FT then remembered that 35% is more than a third!

Among Mr Carney’s most stunning warnings was that house prices would be 35 per cent lower than would otherwise be the case three years after a disruptive no-deal Brexit — which would assume a breakdown in trading relations with the EU.

If you are wondering what would cause this then it was Governor Carney’s version of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

The property crash would be driven by rising unemployment, depressed economic growth, higher inflation and higher interest rates, Mr Carney warned.

This is where the water gets very choppy for Governor Carney. This is because he has played that card before, and two of his horsemen went missing. Let me explain by jumping back to May 2016. From the Guardian.

The Bank warned a vote to leave the EU could:

  • Push the pound lower, “perhaps sharply”.
  • Prompt households and businesses to delay spending.
  • Increase unemployment.
  • Hit economic growth.
  • Stoke inflation.

Missing from that list is the higher mortgage rates that he had suggested earlier in 2016. Three of the points came true to some extent as the Pound £ fell and due to it inflation by my calculations rose by 1.25% to 1.5%. This reduced real wages and hit UK economic growth. But unemployment continued to fall and employment rise. Also the delays in spending did not turn up. Or to be more specific whilst there may have been some investment delays, the UK consumer definitely did go on quite a splurge as retail sales boomed.

Where the Governor also hit trouble was on the recession issue. This was partly due to his habit of playing politics where he associated himself with forecasts suggesting there would be one. The actual Bank of England view was careful to use the word “could” but the HM Treasury one was not.

a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise
compared with a vote to remain.

Partly due to his own obvious personal views Governor Carney got sucked into this. It did not help that the HM Treasury report was signed off by the former Deputy Governor Sir Charlie Bean which gave it a sort of Bank of England gloss and sheen. The May 2016 Inflation Report press conference had question after question on the recession issue which illustrates the perception at the time. Then this was added to in July and August 2016 when the Bank of England and in particular its Chief Economist Andy Haldane again raised the recession issue by telling us the Bank needed a “Sledgehammer” response and then delivering it. Or half delivering it because by the time we got to the second part being due ( November 2016) it was clear that the chief economist had got it wrong. But that phase seemed to be driven by a Bank of England in panic mode looking at a later section of the HM Treasury report.

In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people
made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise.

Did the Bank of England Sledgehammer stop a recession?

Over the past 2 years this has come up a lot with journalists and ex Bank of England staff suggesting that it did. If so it would have been the fastest real economy response to monetary action in history. That would be odd at a time the ECB was telling us it thought the reaction function had slowed, But anyway rather than me making the case let me hand you over to Mark Carney himself and ony the emphasis is mine.

Monetary policy operates with a lag – long and
variable lag, as you know – and if there is a sharp adjustment in demand, in activity, from whatever event, it will take some time for stimulus, if it’s provided – if it’s appropriate to be provided – for it to course through the economy and offset, to cushion that fall in demand. ( May 2016 Inflation Report press conference)

Although he did later claim to have “saved” 250,000 jobs showing yet again the appropriateness of the word unreliable in his case.

Interest-Rates

This is another awkward area for the Governor as he is back to predicting higher interest-rates. The last time he did that he cut them! Still maybe he has learnt something as his critique of a future cut is a description of what happened after the August 2016  one.

“If you cut rates you would end up with higher inflation.”

Public Finances

Moving away from the Governor to the Chancellor he appears to be unaware that the deficit figures have improved considerably.

Mr Hammond said the Treasury would be constrained in its ability to tackle the crisis by boosting spending, noting the country was still recovering from the aftermath of the 2008 crash and questioning the effectiveness of a fiscal stimulus in one country.

Comment

There is a fair bit to consider here. Let us start with house prices which have proved to be rather resilient in 2017/18, and I mean the dictionary definition of resilient not the way central bankers apply it to banks and growth. I thought we would see the beginnings of some falls but whilst there have been some in London the national picture has instead been one of slowing growth. The ideal scenario in my opinion would be for some gentle falls to deflate the bubble.Some argue that it could be done by them being flat for a while but with wage growth seemingly stuck in the 2% to 3% range that would take too long in my opinion.

But house prices are too high and the Bank of England and the government have conspired and operated to put them there. The use of the word “help” in some of the policies has been especially Orwellian as the result of it is invariably to push house prices even higher and thus even more out of reach. So to them a 35% fall seems dreadful and I can imagine the gloom around the cabinet table as it was announced. The Governor would have been gloomy too as the fall would be slightly larger than the rises his policies have helped to engineer as we mull whether that is why 35% in particular was chosen?

So overall a 35% fall in house prices would bring benefits but it would not be a perfect policy. I have had various replies on social media from people who have recently bought and I have friends in that position. I wish them no ill which is why my preference is for the scenario I have outlined. But the housing market cannot be a one way bet forever .

Also let us take some perspective. You see there is little new in the forecast we have discussed today as it has been the Bank of England no-deal Brexit forecast for some time now. So let me finish on a more optimistic note tucked away in the FT article.

However, he boosted Mrs May’s position when he said that if she struck a Brexit deal based on her much-criticised Chequers exit plan presented to Brussels in July, the economy would outperform current forecasts because it would be better than the bank’s assumed outcome.

A reward for his extra seven months? At that point the Prime Minister might have mused how much nicer he might have been if she had given him an extra year.