|
Welcome to a Weekly Report special, incorporating further discussion of last
weeks Occasional Letter.
This week we look at an example of Eggertsson Theory in practise, what really
worries the Fed and what is their favourite import, how expectations can be
managed, why General Electric are going to struggle and I announce something
a little different. A lot to cover and I am pressed for time so let's get on
with it.
The Bank of England Applies Eggertsson Theory - An Example
For background please read this article The
Future Actions of The Federal Reserve And US Govt Are Known in which
I assert that the Federal Reserve is applying a monetarist/Friedman solution,
formalized in a theory put forward by G B Eggertsson in The Deflation Bias
and Committing to Being Irresponsible.
I have been watching for signs that other Central Banks may also be applying
similar methods in an attempt to offset deflationary tendencies and the Bank
of England (BofE) duly obliged:
- 11:00 am 8th APRIL LONG-TERM REPO OMO
In its scheduled long-term repo OMO on 15 April, the Bank will offer
Stg 15bn at the 3-month maturity. In this operation, there will be a
minimum bid rate at the 3-month maturity. This will be determined by
the Bank based on the 3-month overnight index swap (OIS) rate, and will
be announced shortly before the operation. The maximum total size of
a counterparty's bids, across all maturities offered in the long-term
repo OMO, may not be greater than 20% of the total size, across all maturities,
of the long-term repo OMO. The wider range of high quality collateral
will be the same as that accepted in the December, January and March
operations.
Reserves will also be offered as usual at the 6, 9 and 12 month maturities,
in the standard size and against the Bank's standard published list of
eligible collateral. The total size of the April operation will therefore
be Stg 16.35 billion.
The Bank is committed to providing the liquidity assistance that the
system as a whole needs to function normally.
It's the type of action undertaken by the Federal Reserve on a now routine
basis and since September '07 has become a rolling monthly programme for the
BofE. As we can see from the figures above the lending requirement is heavily
concentrated in the 3 month maturity window, helping to alleviate strains in
longer maturity money markets.
So we see stage one of an Eggertsson Theory based currency infusion into the
Banking system. However as Eggertsson pointed out we need to see an increase
in Government debt to raise expectations that a credible attempt is being made
to inflate.
This is from the aptly named United Kingdom Debt Management Office:
- CREATION OF COLLATERAL FOR CASH MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS: APRIL 2008
On Wednesday 16 April 2008, in accordance with paragraph 6.10 of the
2008-09 DMO Exchequer cash management remit, an additional £15,000
million (cash) of collateral will be created and issued to the DMO for
use in the DMO's Exchequer cash management operations. The collateral
to be created will comprise £11,650 million (nominal) of gilts
(excluding gilts maturing within one year, double-dated, undated and
rump gilts) plus £483 million (nominal) of the Treasury bill maturing
on 7 July 2008.
The additional collateral will be held on the Debt Management Account
by the DMO and will not be available for outright sale. Specific gilts
will not be available to the repo market for a period of three months,
during which time these new issues will only be used in Delivery-by-Value (DBV)
transactions. The additional Treasury bills being created will also only
be used in DBV transactions.
So, here is the second stage, the creation of Govt debt to facilitate the
use of the BofE largesse. Here is the definition of delivery-by-value:
You can, as a Crest member, swap the 3 month maturity BofE cash for Treasuries
that will be available for.....3 months. The cash issued has been collateralised
against newly created Govt debt.
Now to ensure this is seen as an inflationary move, we need rhetoric from
the BofE who are in charge of the attempts to meet the 2% inflation target
rule.
As if by magic the BofE excels itself (I will underline the inflationary bias):
- The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee today voted to reduce
the official Bank Rate paid on commercial bank reserves by 0.25 percentage
points to 5.0%. CPI inflation rose to 2.5% in February. The Committee
expects inflation to rise further this year, reflecting the continuing
impact of higher energy and food prices, as well as the recent depreciation
of sterling on import costs. Such pressures are already evident in producer
input costs and pricing intentions.
Even if commodity prices remain at their current high levels, inflation
should fall back. But to ensure that inflation meets the 2% target in
the medium term, the Committee needs to balance two risks. On the upside, above-target
inflation this year could raise inflation expectations so that, in
the absence of some margin of spare capacity, inflation would remain
above the target. On the downside, the disruption in financial markets
could lead to a slowdown in the economy that was sufficiently sharp to
pull inflation below the target.
In the Committee's judgement, the balance of these risks to the
inflation outlook in the medium term justifies a cut in Bank Rate this
month. Credit conditions have tightened and the availability of
credit appears to be worsening. While the recent depreciation in sterling
will support net exports, the prospects for output growth abroad have
deteriorated. In the United Kingdom, business surveys suggest that
growth has begun to moderate and that a margin of spare capacity will
emerge during this year. This should help to keep domestic inflationary
pressures in check in the medium term.
Against that background, the Committee judged that a reduction in
Bank Rate of 0.25 percentage points to 5.0% was necessary to meet
the 2% target for CPI inflation in the medium term.
It is a stunning piece of work and effective on so many levels as the stage
three requirement in Eggertsson's Theory. It would take a huge "volte face" by
a non-Austrian based economist to find fault with the reasoning. Yet it is
deeply self-contradictory.
-
"CPI inflation rose to 2.5% in February."
"The Committee expects inflation to rise further this year, reflecting
the continuing impact of higher energy and food prices,"
"depreciation of sterling"
"pressures are already evident in producer input costs and pricing
intentions"
"to ensure that inflation meets the 2% target"
"above-target inflation this year could raise inflation expectations"
"inflation would remain above the target."
Seeing statements like those above, you could have been forgiven for thinking
rates should stay at 5.25% or maybe go higher. The expectation is for higher
inflation linked (by the BofE) to rising prices and depreciation in sterling.
The reasoning for the rate cut is beautiful:
- "On the downside, the disruption in financial markets could lead to
a slowdown in the economy that was sufficiently sharp to pull inflation
below the target.
In the Committee's judgement, the balance of these risks to the inflation
outlook in the medium term justifies a cut in Bank Rate this month. Credit
conditions have tightened and the availability of credit appears to be
worsening. While the recent depreciation in sterling will support net
exports, the prospects for output growth abroad have deteriorated. In
the United Kingdom, business surveys suggest that growth has begun to
moderate and that a margin of spare capacity will emerge during this
year. This should help to keep domestic inflationary pressures in check
in the medium term."
After all the emphasis on the inflation target and the possibility of overshooting,
here we get the opposite. Now it is clear that a target of 2% is desirable,
indeed it is essential. Any threat that allows the possibility of inflation
being below 2% must be combated.
Notice the committee expect inflation to rise further this year, yet their
actions are dictated by the possible slowdown of the economy and a specific
mention about the lack of available credit (which is the same as "disruption
in the financial markets"). It is the expected slowdown in growth and an increase
in spare capacity (unemployment up, capacity utilization down) that will keep
inflationary pressures in check.
I'll put it this way. If you feel you need to cut rates, engendering an inflationary
expectation and are then relying on a recession or slowdown to keep inflation
in check at a lower level, you are not really expecting inflationary
forces in the medium term.
- "Committee judged that a reduction in Bank Rate of 0.25 percentage points
to 5.0% was necessary to meet the 2% target for CPI inflation in the medium
term."
The BofE is encouraging higher inflation (by cutting rates and raising rhetoric)
to offset deflationary symptoms that they do not wish to acknowledge in the
statement or wish to have discussed openly.
This is an attempt to front run deflation. The giveaway is this snippet:
- "Even if commodity prices remain at their current high levels, inflation
should fall back."
It is extremely unusual for the BofE to clarify the difference between high
prices and inflation. It is probably the closest they will come to acknowledging
the deflationary forces unleashed by the collapse of credit markets.
Is this policy succeeding, do we have evidence that inflation expectations
are being driven higher by "credible actions"?
Quite possibly we do and current actions by the BofE can only reinforce such
expectations. The following is from Finfacts,
reported on 13th March:
- "A survey by the Bank(of England) showed Britons' expectations of future
inflation rose to a record 3.3% in February, more than a percentage point
above the actual rate of inflation.....At 3.3%, inflation expectations
are at their highest since the Bank began its survey in November 1999.
Britons' expectations of future inflation have risen steadily higher over
the past year as food prices, energy bills and petrol costs have all rocketed.
In November, the median was 3%. A year ago it was 2.7%."
If you want to see how much media interest there is, type "UK inflation expectations" into
google. Then compare it to typing in "UK deflation expectations".
Is the Federal Reserve achieving the same result as it talks up inflation
and appears to be credibly inflating along with the US Govt? Here is the latest
University of Michigan Sentiment Index readings:
- Sentiment Index 63.2 mid-April vs 69.5 in March Current conditions 78.4
vs 84.2 Future expectations 53.4 vs 60.1 One-year inflation expectations
4.8%, 5-year 3.1% Economic outlook 78.4 vs 84.2
These are some of the worst readings since 1982. But notice, amongst all the
gloom, the huge move higher in inflation expectations. The Fed and US Govt
actions are being seen as credible. Yet, what of consumer spending? Is the
Fed engendering a "spend now because it will be more expensive tomorrow" attitude?
- RBC Consumer Attitude and Spending by Household index for April showing
the overall index hit a new record low of 29.5
Are the consumers in the RBC index feeling confident about purchases?
To read the rest of the Weekly Report and visit my new website, click here.
|