Let me open today by agreeing with the Bank of England. As many of you are aware I wrote to Governor Carney challenging the testimony he gave to the House of Lords on the 30th of January. Here is part of the response from the Bank.
No measure of consumer prices is perfect.
A good start however sadly they then claim to agree with me whilst putting a word in my mouth so to speak that I did not say. I have highlighted it below. Also as CPI has been used as their inflation target since 2003 one might wonder where this point of view has been the last 15 years.
We agree that the single biggest shortcoming of the current CPI is that it excludes the consumption price of owner-occupied housing.
If you could sum up what is wrong with the UK establishment view on inflation that single word does it. By putting it like that you go from an owner occupier spending quite a bit of their income over time on their home to someone who spends far less as it is put into another category as it is an asset which doesn’t count and/or an investment which doesn’t count either. Fantastic isn’t it? Chelsea fans like me would have loved to have done that to Barcelona;s goals last Wednesday night but even the murky world of football does not stoop so low.
On the consumption road the owner-occupier does this.
As you will know, measuring this is not straightforward because the consumption cost of owner-occupied housing services is not directly observable. As you note, people do not pay rent to themselves to live in their own home.
Of course it is not directly observable as it is a fantasy number which is imputed as it does not exist. Theory over reality again, what could go wrong?
This is considered an economically sound concept and it is easy to understand, the price a homeowner would have to pay to rent a home similar to their own, but it is clearly an imputed one.
Is “economically sound” an oxymoron? Also it may just be where I live but I have little idea of what they rental value of my flat is and as I live there am not much bothered. As to the idea that it is easy to understand may be so in the Ivory Towers of the Bank of England but I bet if you asked people you would get the reply “but I don’t”. If we go deeper there has been a lot of trouble with measuring this as the Office for National Statistics does not get the source data and is on its second effort in terms of overall series. Those of you willing to look back to 2012 on here will note that I warned about problems with the original series back then but the establishment of course knew better and when it failed it was as usual nobody’s fault. I have seen arguments that its failure to properly stratify between new and old rents means that it is perhaps 1% per annum to low. If we now move to today’s data release you can see the significance of this.
Private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.1% in the 12 months to February 2018; unchanged from January 2018.
If we move to the Retail Prices Index or RPI the Bank of England tells us this.
RPI suffers from this problem.
In any event, an important factor in any measure of consumer prices is avoiding the influence of movements in asset price valuations (such as land prices and asset valuations of housing structures)…………. Indeed, by the inclusion of mortgage interest payments, RPI conflates the consumption cost of housing not only with asset valuations, but also with the costs of financing the acquisition of those assets.
Again theory trumps reality as something which is a large part of people’s budgets disappears from the inflation data as reality gets twisted in the clouds inhabited by the Ivory Towers. Indeed when someone is really dismissing you they tell you are important but….
We should stress that none of this is to say that house prices and mortgage interest payments do not matter. Accurate information on these is central to much of the work of the Bank’s Monetary Policy and Financial Policy Committees as well as many other economic and financial policymakers. They matter a great deal,
They matter so much that they need to be excluded. If we look at other perspectives this matters I note some work by the NIESR suggesting that 62% of households are owner-occupiers and that this has happened.
There is a genuine question of affordability with housing.,,,,,Essentially since 1997, house prices have become twice as expensive relative to incomes.
That is the real reason that house prices are kept out of the inflation data as you see then the rises are increases in wealth and filter their way into economic growth.Maybe some is but a lot of this is inflation as first-time buyers will not noting ruefully.
Let me put this another way by noting this from the Bank of England.
As you suggest, the other main alternative is the net acquisitions approach.
No I said house prices as my support for the net acquisitions approach has faded and let me explain why with two numbers. The weight of owner occupiers in CPIH is 17.4% but the weight using net acquisitions is 6.8%. Just as a reminder it is the same housing stock. But even with that manipulation there is a clear difference.
Owner occupiers’ housing costs (OOH) in the UK under the rental equivalence approach have grown by 1.5% in Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2017 compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year.
OOH according to the net acquisitions approach have grown by 2.9% in Quarter 4 2017 compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year.
This comes from a release which in my opinion was part of a propaganda campaign to convince us that all roads led to the same answer. As you can see that is misfiring and perhaps like the effort with the RPIJ measure will find its way into the recycling bin both friendless and abandoned.
If we look at today’s data the news is better as we see a fall in consumer inflation with the CPI measure falling to an annual rate of 2.7% and RPI to 3.6%. Those of you mulling the potential for a second Battle of the Thames today as well as those who like to keep up to date on the price of fish might like to know that fish prices rose by 1.3% this February as opposed to 4.7% last year. Looking deeper into the inflation chain we see this.
The headline rate of inflation for goods leaving the factory gate (output prices) was 2.6% on the year to February 2018, down from 2.8% in January 2018. Prices for materials and fuels (input prices) rose 3.4% on the year to February 2018, down from 4.5% in January 2018.
The media report this as the fall in the Pound £ dropping out of the numbers actually especially in the input series it is the stronger £ versus the US Dollar at play as it has a pretty direct line in. It will impact on the other measures as 2018 develops and help to bring down their numbers
Returning to my theme we end up with a pretty clear conclusion as to the establishment’s game as RPI at 3.6% is rubbished and CPI at 2.5% is promoted. I wrote some time back that they always promote things which give the lowest number and if I am ever wrong fell free to let me know. Meanwhile my arguments are hitting home as I notice some of my opponents are getting cold feet.
It has only taken 6 years. If we move onto planning ahead I think we have to move from consumer inflation to the inflation people experience as otherwise we miss this as explained by Edward Harrison.
Using the Minsky model, it’s wholly possible that asset price inflation is through the roof even while consumer price inflation barely budges. For example, say you have a credit crisis that throws people out of work and causes mass unemployment. In that case, it would take many years to get back to full employment. You won’t see inflation rising robustly. Yet, during that period, the central bank could set interest rates at a level that encourages an increase in speculative and then, eventually, Ponzi financing. That’s a recipe for asset price inflation without consumer price inflation.
Whatever your views on the Minsky model that bit is pretty much impossible to argue with. Now should we go forwards with that or backwards with “economically sound concepts” which keep failing?