A speech last week by outgoing BoE Governor Mark Carney was a case in point. In summary, Carney emphasised that further asset purchases
and additional forward guidance mean that central banks have more scope than is
commonly supposed. But the speech had a valedictory air about it, highlighting
the successes of the BoE’s monetary policy during Carney’s near-seven years in
office without touching on the downsides, and we have to look through some of
the spin in order to assess whether some of the policy prescriptions still
stand up. That said, central banks have had more policy successes than failures
over the past decade so we should cut them some slack. After all, if the likes
of the ECB had not done “whatever it takes” to hold the euro zone together in
2012, the economic history of the past decade could have been very different
(and not in a good way).
Turning first to the issue of forward guidance, this was one
of Carney’s big ideas when taking office in 2013 through which the BoE would
indicate how it would set monetary policy contingent on economic conditions.
Despite the Governor’s claims for its success today, the reality in 2013-14 was
very different. Recall that the BoE made it clear it would not raise interest
rates so long as the unemployment rate remained above 7%. In the event
unemployment fell much more quickly than anticipated, yet rates were kept on
hold. Clearly, a commitment not to raise rates so long as unemployment is above
a threshold level is not the same as a commitment to raise them when it falls
below it. But there was a significant degree of confusion
surrounding the policy and it is more than a stretch to claim, as Carney does now,
that “people understood the
conditionality of guidance.”
One of my retrospective criticisms of the BoE’s forward
guidance policy is that it quickly abandoned the published unemployment rate as
a target variable in favour of the output gap, giving rise to the suspicion
(whether justified or not) that it no longer suited the BoE’s purposes. As I
noted in written evidence to a parliamentary committee in 2017, “since the measure of spare capacity was
determined by the BoE, this meant that outside observers became increasingly
reliant on the information feed from the MPC to determine the future policy
stance. The clarity of rule-based forward guidance policy was lost.”
Is there a future for forward guidance? Despite my
reservations about the way in which it has been implemented in the past, I
believe it does have a role to play – although maybe a less important one than
Carney believes. In my view, forward guidance has a much more prosaic role. By
communicating its objectives to as wide an audience as possible on a regular
basis, it should be possible to remind people of the things that the central
bank focuses on and thereby encourage the public to observe a particular set of
variables, thereby giving it a better idea of how the central bank is likely to
react. I am not sure that the message is getting through, however. Despite
numerous BoE communications regarding the current below-target rate of
inflation, the most recent Bank of England/TNS Inflation Attitudes Survey,
conducted in November, suggested respondents believed the current rate of inflation was 2.9%
(it was actually 1.4%) and the 12-month ahead forecast was for a rate of 3.1% (the BoE expects it to be significantly below 2%).
Carney also made the case for additional QE. On the basis of
his calculations, further asset purchases of around £120bn (0.5% of GDP) is
equivalent to 100 bps of interest rate cuts. Adding in the near 75 bps of
conventional rate reductions, which would take Bank Rate to near zero, and the
(unspecified) impact of forward guidance he reckons the BoE would be able to
deliver monetary easing equivalent to 250 bps of rate cuts, which just happens
to be the average in pre-2008 monetary easing cycles. However, it is what he
did not say that is telling. It may be possible to deliver a one-off
monetary boost of the magnitude that Carney suggests, though that is
questionable since it is acknowledged that the marginal impact of QE diminishes
as central banks buy more assets. But it is not possible to deliver it
on a repeated basis without taking away some of the initial stimulus when the
economic picture improves (which is, of course, what European central banks
have not done in the past decade).
Another issue that Carney did not address are the long-term
consequences of lower for longer. Savers have foregone a significant amount of
interest income over the past decade. The response to that is savers should
have taken cash out of the bank and bunged it into equities, but that does not
seem to be a prudent policy which central bankers should endorse. Indeed, Carney
argued that “the vast majority of savers
who might lose some interest income from lower policy rates stand to gain from
increases in asset prices that result from monetary policy stimulus.” But
that is not very helpful when the asset in question happens to be your home as
it is not so easy to realise the capital gain (unless you plan to significantly
downsize). As for pensions, central bankers are aware that keeping rates low
has a major impact on future pension returns but they do not talk about it much
in public. However, annuity rates continue to fall which means that the future
value of our pension pots is a lot less than it used to be. I thus continue to
believe that the long-term consequences of a prolonged low interest rate policy
will only be felt in the very long-term, by which time it will be too late to
do anything about it, and today’s generation of central bankers will be long
gone.
For all central bankers continue to tell us that they have
more ammunition in the face of a downturn, the ECB under Christine Lagarde is
no longer as gung-ho about a lax monetary stance as it was under Mario Draghi,
since it realises that negative rates have significant side effects. Although
the likes of Carney and Draghi can, with some justification, argue that their
loose policy prescriptions were the right choice at the time the real problem
is that rates remained low for much longer than was necessary on the basis of
prevailing economic conditions. The problems associated with this are becoming
increasingly evident and sooner or later I fear we will all pay a price.
No comments:
Post a Comment