That Mark Carney effect in full

The new Governor of the Bank of England makes sweeping changes.

It's our favourite chart, and you can really see the effect new governor Mark Carney is having on the Bank of England.

In all seriousness, though, the Bank's announcement of the meeting of the monetary policy committee (MPC) did contain a bombshell, of sorts:

The implied rise in the expected future path of Bank Rate was not warranted by the recent developments in the domestic economy.

In non-central-bank speak: "don't expect us to raise interest rates any time soon, because the economy is still in the toilet." What they're saying is almost less important than the fact that they're saying it at all, though. Interest rate decisions are normally passed down without any statement at all; we have to wait for the minutes of the MPC to be released a few weeks later to find out what was going through their heads. That pushes the statement from an explanation of their thoughts into active monetary policy in its own right. It is what's known as "forward guidance".

Monetary policy is, at heart, an expectations game. Interest rates, inflation, and even (to a lesser extent) the quantity of money matter because they change the decisions you make about how to plan for the future. If interest rates are low, you're likely to invest. If interest rates are low and likely to stay low, you're likely to invest more. If interest rates are low and the central bank is telling you they'll stay low for quite some time, well then, you may as well buy some stocks or build a bridge or something, because you aren't going to make any profit in a savings account.

Forward guidance is a very Carneyesque thing to be doing (although Mervyn King was no stranger to the concept himself), but there's two sides to the coin: making promises, and keeping them. This guidance isn't particularly controversial, merely stating what we all knew they were thinking; but it's useful to build up trust that when the Bank makes statements, they're statements you can bank on.

Update:

Fanfaronade adds to our translation. Though this metaphor is getting rather mixed now.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

BHS is Theresa May’s big chance to reform capitalism – she’d better take it

Almost everyone is disgusted by the tale of BHS. 

Back in 2013, Theresa May gave a speech that might yet prove significant. In it, she declared: “Believing in free markets doesn’t mean we believe that anything goes.”

Capitalism wasn’t perfect, she continued: 

“Where it’s manifestly failing, where it’s losing public support, where it’s not helping to provide opportunity for all, we have to reform it.”

Three years on and just days into her premiership, May has the chance to be a reformist, thanks to one hell of an example of failing capitalism – BHS. 

The report from the Work and Pensions select committee was damning. Philip Green, the business tycoon, bought BHS and took more out than he put in. In a difficult environment, and without new investment, it began to bleed money. Green’s prize became a liability, and by 2014 he was desperate to get rid of it. He found a willing buyer, Paul Sutton, but the buyer had previously been convicted of fraud. So he sold it to Sutton’s former driver instead, for a quid. Yes, you read that right. He sold it to a crook’s driver for a quid.

This might all sound like a ludicrous but entertaining deal, if it wasn’t for the thousands of hapless BHS workers involved. One year later, the business collapsed, along with their job prospects. Not only that, but Green’s lack of attention to the pension fund meant their dreams of a comfortable retirement were now in jeopardy. 

The report called BHS “the unacceptable face of capitalism”. It concluded: 

"The truth is that a large proportion of those who have got rich or richer off the back of BHS are to blame. Sir Philip Green, Dominic Chappell and their respective directors, advisers and hangers-on are all culpable. 

“The tragedy is that those who have lost out are the ordinary employees and pensioners.”

May appears to agree. Her spokeswoman told journalists the PM would “look carefully” at policies to tackle “corporate irresponsibility”. 

She should take the opportunity.

Attempts to reshape capitalism are almost always blunted in practice. Corporations can make threats of their own. Think of Google’s sweetheart tax deals, banks’ excessive pay. Each time politicians tried to clamp down, there were threats of moving overseas. If the economy weakens in response to Brexit, the power to call the shots should tip more towards these companies. 

But this time, there will be few defenders of the BHS approach.

Firstly, the report's revelations about corporate governance damage many well-known brands, which are tarnished by association. Financial services firms will be just as keen as the public to avoid another BHS. Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said that the circumstances of the collapse of BHS were “a blight on the reputation of British business”.

Secondly, the pensions issue will not go away. Neglected by Green until it was too late, the £571m hole in the BHS pension finances is extreme. But Tom McPhail from pensions firm Hargreaves Lansdown has warned there are thousands of other defined benefit schemes struggling with deficits. In the light of BHS, May has an opportunity to take an otherwise dusty issue – protections for workplace pensions - and place it top of the agenda. 

Thirdly, the BHS scandal is wreathed in the kind of opaque company structures loathed by voters on the left and right alike. The report found the Green family used private, offshore companies to direct the flow of money away from BHS, which made it in turn hard to investigate. The report stated: “These arrangements were designed to reduce tax bills. They have also had the effect of reducing levels of corporate transparency.”

BHS may have failed as a company, but its demise has succeeded in uniting the left and right. Trade unionists want more protection for workers; City boys are worried about their reputation; patriots mourn the death of a proud British company. May has a mandate to clean up capitalism - she should seize it.