Blog posts with the tag "quantitative easing"

What’s next? Helicopter money? – Gregor Logan

Tags: , , , ,

Greece is facing debt repayment deadlines again and so is ‘renegotiating its debts’ with the EU (a euphemism for borrowing even more). The last time this happened in July 2012 Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, said in an unscripted off the cuff remark “within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough”. These few words have been credited with saving the Euro, or at least prolonging its agony, as confidence returned to financial markets and the cost of debt in Greece, Italy and Spain fell dramatically, allowing Greece to roll over its debt.

The world relies on ever more experimental monetary policy because after the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 governments of the developed world had accumulated too high levels of debt and ongoing deficits to introduce classical Keynesian reflationary fiscal policies of tax reduction and higher government spending.

Since the early 1990’s central banks have been tasked with controlling inflation as their primary policy aim. This has been interpreted as 2% is good, but above or below 2% requires monetary contraction or expansion. When zero interest rates proved insufficient to generate more than anaemic growth and hence the required 2% inflation, the central bankers introduced further monetary stimulus in the form of bond buy back’s, now termed Quantitative Easing or QE. First introduced in the US, it was followed with varying levels of speed and enthusiasm by the UK, Japan and Europe.

This has enabled the global economy to enjoy so-so economic growth of 2% or so, but has only been possible because consumers and corporates have returned to spending tomorrow’s income today and in the process run up considerably larger debts than before the crisis; debts which in many cases are only affordable because of the prevailing very low interest rates. It has also fuelled the much debated rise in asset prices and consequent divergence in wealth.

Many think all this is simply storing up a bigger crisis for the future. Nor has it addressed the major imbalances in the global economy — characterised as the developing world exporting cheap goods and low paid workers to the developed world and in the process deflating consumer prices, lowering the cost of borrowing and encouraging the propensity for Western consumers to borrow and spend.

In Japan, the central bank has done so much QE there are fears they may have run out of ammunition. In the US, Donald Trump has said the previously unthinkable by a politician and suggested the Government should pay back its national debt with discounts. You might write that off as another attention seeking maverick quote, but he is merely voicing what many are thinking.

In our press ‘helicopter money’ is widely talked about as the next step — but only one that will be taken in extremis — just like QE before it. Helicopter money is when central banks print money for the government to spend as it chooses or transfers are simply made to individuals to spend, typically within a specified time frame so the money cannot be saved. There are recent precedents. In 1999 Japan gifted shopping coupons with a six month life to families and the elderly and in 2008 US taxpayers received a one-off gratuitous rebate of $300.

I think this begs two important questions. The first was prompted by Mario Draghi in 2012 when he prefaced his remarks with ‘within our remit’: Just how far does the remit of a central banker go? Is it continuously assessed, and if so by whom and why don’t we hear or see evidence of it? I ask this question because in many ways they now appear to be acting as unelected governments, determining — not just implementing — economic policy, often seemingly and regrettably on the hoof.

The second question is why will helicopter money work after zero and now negative interest rates combined with QE have been insufficient to cure our perceived economic ills and may even, as some commentators suggest, be storing up yet more trouble for the future? Why will it not be just another short-term boost that fades with time leaving us back where we were but with even more debts created by fiat money?

Financial markets have placed huge confidence in the ability of central bankers to ‘do what it takes’. With fading global growth, government bond yields already low or negative, even in high debtor nations like Greece, and equity valuations at the upper end of their historic levels, a pretty big rabbit is going to have to come out of someone’s hat sometime soon.

What next from central bankers? – Gregor Logan

Tags: , , , , ,

I went to see The Big Short recently. What a great movie. I thought it was as good if not better than the book. And interesting timing with financial markets in disarray as fears over Chinese growth, falling oil prices and the Fed’s interest hike take their toll. We await the response of central bankers to the latest equity market weakness. Mario Draghi, Head of the European Central Bank, has hinted at further unconventional stimulus, but given no detail. The Fed has backpedalled fast on their proposed four hikes in 2016. With interest rates already at near zero and fiscal budgets still under strain, further unconventional measures are surely not far off.

A fascinating review of past policy failures and alternative policy options for the future are given in Adair Turner’s excellent book ‘Between Debt and the Devil’ in which, surprisingly for a former Chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and general establishment figure, he challenges conventional economic and policy wisdom on many fronts. I warmed to him in the first few pages when he describes starting work as Chairman of the FSA in September 2008. He quickly concludes we faced the biggest financial crisis in 80 years and humbly admits “seven days before I started I had no idea we were on the verge of disaster.” He also suggests almost no one else amongst all of the central banks, regulators, or finance ministries, nor in financial markets or major economics departments knew either. I encourage you to read the book to get the full benefit of his intellectual rigour.

In brief, his conclusion is that central bankers’ current desire to stimulate bank lending via low interest rates and QE is misplaced and instead of solving anything is merely adding to the problems we already have. In particular, it helps the wealthy drive up already inflated real estate prices. He goes further by suggesting we may not need private credit growth at all to fuel economic growth. As a result, and to create a much more stable environment commercial bank’s debt equity ratios should be regulated down to much lower levels than even the new post crisis frugality dictates.

In contrast, he seeks to banish the existing taboo (at least on the political right) of high government deficits and suggests rising government debt is okay as long as it is in a controlled fashion and inflation remains low.

As to how we get out of the current impasse of already low rates and high government deficits, he recommends a large dose of Fiat money in the belief that it is an erroneous notion that printing money will lead to harmful inflation. He writes: “To escape the mess created by past policy errors, we sometimes need to monetize government debt and finance fiscal deficits with central-bank money.”

In other words he argues that the mantra of private debt good, public debt bad should be turned on its head with private debt taxed as toxic and public debt forgiven by the vast creation of Fiat money.

If equity markets continue to decline and fears of a global economic recession become mainstream thinking I expect to see some of his suggested policies being more widely discussed and adopted.

Vote of confidence in central bankers – Gregor Logan

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Equity markets have rallied over the last week as central bankers in Europe and the US have opined on interest rates. Firstly Mario Draghi at the ECB kept rates on hold but more encouragingly said more QE was a possibility after the current programme concluded. Markets might have been concerned at this admission of potential economic frailty but instead chose to be grateful for the possible extra boost to liquidity. Similarly Janet Yellen at the Fed kept rates on hold and this time left open the possibility of a rate rise in December this year, in contrast to last month’s concerns about ‘international headwinds’ suggested no move till into next year.

This is similar to the stance suggested by Mark Carney to the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank that it remains a possibility that UK rates may rise this year.
Meanwhile the economic news has continued to confirm a modest slowdown in growth and pretty much a complete absence of any inflationary pressures.

Clearly the central bankers continue to think it better to allow the unfortunate consequences of low interest rates to prevail over the risk that tightening too soon will choke off the still modest economic growth.

Most commentators are agreed that low interest rates and QE have been a major contributor to growing wealth inequality as asset prices, both tangible and intangible, have been boosted. The decline in bond yields has hurt pensioners both directly through lower annuity rates and together with other low risk savers indirectly through lower deposit rates.

This has led to greater risks being assumed by both savers and borrowers. For example, the amount of debt required to purchase property with vastly inflated prices by new owners has risen and only been affordable because of low rates. This leaves them vulnerable should either rates rise or prices fall or both.

When asset prices have been rising for a while it is easy to forget the devastating impact on the residual of two big numbers when one or both of them move in the wrong direction.

It leaves a delicate balance for the central bankers to maintain. Possible of course, but past history suggests not one they often get right.

It’s all about interest rates – Gregor Logan

Tags: , , , , ,

Global equity markets have traded sideways over the last week consolidating the rally at the start of October. There has not been a huge amount of economic data to the influence the direction of the equity markets, and what data there has been has continued the modestly positive but slowing trend of the last several months.

The interest rate hawks at the Bank of England and the Fed have both given speeches this week outlining why they think rates should rise sooner rather than later. Ian McCafferty of the BoE told an audience at Bloomberg that to achieve their ambition of a gradual and non disruptive normalisation of policy after a long period in which rates have been at historic lows, they must not get behind the curve. As he has been a lone voice at the last three meetings in calling for a rate hike, presumably he thinks they are already behind the curve. John Williams at the Fed told Bloomberg something similar.

This leaves us still trying to determine whether the recent correction in equity markets will be just that, or turn into a more prolonged and deeper bear market. The bulls argue we are in a mid-cycle pause in economic growth and that the developed economies can continue to prosper despite the now fairly entrenched slowdowns in the emerging economies, China in particular. Europe, they suggest, is in the early stages of benefiting from QE. Also, that high equity valuations relative to their own history are no impediment to further gains, as was seen in the last several bull market peaks which topped out at valuations higher than most thought plausible. The apparent technical deterioration with a trend break and more new lows that highs can be dismissed as a temporary phenomenon should markets rally from here.

The bear’s response is that we have enjoyed the second longest equity bull market in history, driven mostly by rising valuations on the back of extremely loose monetary policy and which is about to become less loose. As short interest rates rise so will bond yields, undermining the flattering comparison equities currently enjoy. Corporate profits will be squeezed and the valuations put on them will shrink.

With markets driven at the margin, or by the ‘what have you done for me today’ principle, I am inclined to side with the bears.

Was the ending of QE equivalent to the first rate hike? – Gregor Logan

Tags: , ,

Last week I wrote an article for The Market Mogul about the impact that any Federal Reserve interest rate rise might have on the global economy, and when it might happen. Some people have said that the decision to hold rates in September indicated that the Fed were worried about growth prospects.

But see it another way: I think the ending of quantitative easing should be seen as the equivalent of a first rate rise, and I think in time this will also be recognised in the market. It is from this date that we should start to calculate the impact on the economy and asset prices, not when the Fed finally do raise rates. I think this has already been reflected in the weakness in emerging market economic growth, stock markets and commodity prices.

Read more on The Market Mogul by Gregor Logan >

Email updates

Receive an email every time something new is posted on my blog


Welcome to my website. I'm Gregor Logan, an independent management professional with over 35 years of experience in all asset classes, including equities, bonds, property, private equity, alternative assets and bonds. I previously held senior-level roles at MGM Assurance, Pavilion Asset Management and New Star Asset Management.

Get in touch

Contact Gregor Logan via mail  Contact Gregor Logan via Twitter  Contact Gregor Logan via Linkedin  Contact Gregor Logan via Medium  Contact Gregor Logan via Google+  Contact Gregor Logan via About.Me 


Follow me on Twitter:

© 2015 Gregor Logan
Website by Right Angles     |     Photography by Get Shot