The Washington impasse may lead to further Euro strength

In an epic reversal of fortunes, the Eurozone is starting to look like a safe haven to some.

It’s been a pretty quiet year in the major currency markets. Euro vs the USD is the most actively traded currency pair in the 5 trillion USD a day market, and this year its range has been pretty muted, with a high on 1 February of 1.3711 and a low of 1.2746 on 4 April. As I write, on 21 October, the current price is 1.3680, so only a hair’s breadth away from the year’s highs.

The USD was already suffering as a result of the Fed’s "no-taper" shocker in September and we know what China felt about Washington’s stand-off and brinkmanship with the debt ceiling; last week saw China’s ex-deputy head of FX regulation opining that China should cut its holdings of US Treasuries in the medium to long term and the ECB’s Nowotny chipping in to say that the Euro will play an increasing role as a reserve currency.

The dollar’s trouble is that it now seems highly unlikely that the Fed will stop printing money in the near future. The messy denouement of the Washington show means that we will now be subject to another four or maybe even six months of rather unsettling uncertainty.

Although Congress has extended to debt limit to 7 February, the US Treasury could then start to use "extraordinary" accounting measures to live from hand-to-mouth for a few more weeks, as it started doing this year in May, finding some USD 300bn tucked away to prolong the real debt limit deadline to 17 October (ish). The seasonal shape of US Treasury receipts and payments suggests it will only take a couple of months or so to use up USD 300bn this time, only getting them through to April.

This is neither "nowt nor summat", as we say in Yorkshire. It’s not a short enough time for consumers, corporations and the Fed to feel this is all going to be behind us soon, and it’s not far enough away for everyone to think "whatever, I’ll forget about Washington for a year", say. It’s just about the worst timescale one can imagine.

Consumers will put off purchases, employers will hesitate to hire - in both cases probably not catastrophically, but enough to take the edge off growth - 0.5 per cent in Q4 2013 and Q1 2014. More importantly for the dollar’s fortunes the Fed now seems highly unlikely to taper before its March meeting, and there must even be some doubt over that now.

The Fed’s key data points are going to be unreliable. We’re now going to see September’s employment report on 22 October, but the market’s reaction function will be heavily skewed: if the numbers are weak, then they’ll be taken to presage an economic dip, if they’re strong they’ll be discounted as dating from before Washington’s antics. The next employment report, for October, will now come out on 8 November and the "household survey" used to calculate the unemployment rate will have to conducted retrospectively - so that will be tainted, and also subject to the same interpretation bias. This all means it’ll be January before the Fed might feel it has "clean" jobs data to analyse.

In an epic reversal of fortunes, the shutdown/debt ceiling debate has given even the Euro some semblance of safe-haven status and thrown into stark relief the contrast between the philosophies of the Fed and the ECB.

With the OMT still doing its job as a virtual sticking plaster, and a Grand Coalition in the making in Germany, there seems little reason why EUR/USD can’t climb towards 1.40 or above before Christmas. That in turn will make the ECB very uneasy, as the Eurozone is flirting with deflation, so a rate cut and/or another LTRO seems very likely-probably at the December meeting.

US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reads the FT during the annual World Bank - IMF meetings in Washington, DC. Photograph: Jim Watson/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.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.