Mark Carney is gambling with his credibility

Risky, risky, risky.

In a dramatic break with history, at his first meeting as Governor,  Mark Carney persuaded the Bank of England’s, (BOE), Monetary Policy Committee, (MPC), to issue what amounted to forward guidance on the path of future monetary policy.

The key sentence in the statement issued by the MPC was, "The, (recently observed), significant upward movement in market interest rates, would, however, weigh on that outlook; in the Committee’s view, the implied rise in the expected future path of Bank Rate was not warranted by the recent developments in the domestic economy".

There are arguments against, and arguments in favour of forward guidance. Against the guidance ties the committee’s hands and will make it look stupid if it subsequently has to adapt it too quickly, (almost by definition), and if it does have to change the message, that’s going to lead to ever-diminishing credibility for future guidance, i.e. the market will remember the committee’s ‘mistakes’ and not believe future guidance.

For: it represents "costless" intervention, in the narrow sense that the central bank doesn’t have to actually DO anything right now and, if the guidance does have to change direction later, then that will probably be because the initial guidance has done its work - having lead to the desired economic adjustment.

The substance of today’s messages from both the BOE and the European Central Bank, (ECB), which used a similar tactic, was that they had seen their yield curves steepen dramatically since the market became obsessed with "tapering" in the US-the process by which the Fed may wind down its programme of Quantitative Easing, and that they could neither understand this phenomenon nor stand idly by and watch it happen. To paraphrase their message- "never mind the US, or the Fed, look at our economies and ask yourself, why would you expect us to raise rates any sooner now than you did two months ago". Fair enough and, in the ECB’s case, a very good point.

However, I think Carney has started his encumbency with a very risky gamble. Whilst the Eurozone economy has been flatlining and boasts economies best described as ranging from zombie to plunging, the UK economic data has recently given us some distinctly pleasant surprises - the latest being the Services Purchasing Managers’ Index-representing a massive sector of the economy- and quite a robust housing market recovery. Let us also not forget that UK inflation remains stubbornly high and shows no real tendency to fall. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but probably by Christmas, I think the BOE will have to subtly change today’s attempt at guidance and investors who bought gilts on the back of today’s BOE statement may come to regret that before long.

Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney. Photograph: Getty Images

Chairman of  Saxo Capital Markets Board

An Honours Graduate from Oxford University, Nick Beecroft has over 30 years of international trading experience within the financial industry, including senior Global Markets roles at Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Citibank. Nick was a member of the Bank of England's Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee.

More of his work can be found here.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.