Is there a case for a February interest rate hike?

The rate hike hares are running following evidence that shoppers are spending more freely and building approvals are back to levels last seen almost three years ago.

In a sign that the stimulus from low interest rates is sustaining an improvement in consumer outlook despite the soft employment market and federal budget gloom, retail sales rose 0.7 per cent in November to be up 4.6 per cent from a year earlier, while building approvals remained at their healthiest level in years, despite a small retreat from the previous two months.

The solid readings have led at least one prominent economist to predict the Reserve Bank of Australia will soon have to begin raising interest rates in order to ward off the risk of a surge in inflation.

Market Economics managing director Stephen Koukoulas said today the economy “is on fire”, and that the Reserve Bank Board should lift its cash rate when it returns for its first monetary policy meeting of the year on February 4.

The latest readings on the economy follow the release of figures last week showing the nation’s trade deficit narrowed significantly in the second half of 2013, a trend that is expected to continue as the completion of major resource infrastructure projects boosts the nation’s export capacity.

After reaching above $1.5 billion in mid-2013, the deficit had shrunk to little more than $110 million in November, and anecdotal evidence indicates there was strong growth in iron ore export volumes last month.

Adding to the picture, a Dun & Bradstreet survey released earlier this week indicated that business is becoming increasingly upbeat about its investment and employment intentions.

But worries about the health of the jobs market remain.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, monthly job vacancies have been in a sustained decline since reaching a peak of almost 190,000 in early 2011. In November last year, the ABS reported, there were barely 140,000.

In its mid-year update on the economy, Treasury was downbeat on the labour market, predicting the jobless rate would rise to 6.25 per cent next financial year as the economy grew at below-trend rate.

But, as Kouloulas points out, the jobs market is a lagging indicator of economic activity, and the latest economic data suggest Treasury may have been too pessimistic.

For instance, between August and December it cut forecast dwelling investment growth from 5 to 3 per cent, though as it itself admitted, “finance commitments for new dwellings are now 12.4 per cent higher than a year ago and building approvals have improved noticeably from their trough in early 2012. Higher house prices could initiate a stronger investment response”.

The risk for the RBA is that, if it misreads the situation, a rate hike in the next month or so might puncture nascent optimism and slow or stall (at least temporarily) the recovery in non-mining sectors of the economy.

The risk is heightened by the Federal Government’s tub-thumping on the state of the Commonwealth Budget and looming threat of significant cuts in public sector spending.

In addition, raising rates could help reinflate the Australian dollar, something the RBA would be keen to avoid (one of this blog’s correspondents, @MrMacroMan, said that an RBA official speaking in New York overnight was “very clear on AUD risk and rates on hold”).

Yet, if analysts like Koukoulas are correct and the economy is taking off, an official interest rate of 2.5 per cent would obviously be inappropriate, and could sow the seeds of dangerous price pressures down the track.

As RBA Governor Glenn Stevens might say, the decision may come down to which is the path of last regret.

Fortunately for it, more evidence about the strength of activity is due to be released before the 4 February meeting, including finance and employment figures, as well as construction activity numbers.

In the meantime, markets are likely to be busily recalculating the odds of a rate move at next month’s meeting.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Big oil shows up Abbott on climate change

It used to be that citizens would look to governments to develop plans for the long term.

But on the issue of climate change the world has entered a bizarre parallel universe where it is the private sector – specifically major multinational corporations – that is leading the way.

Some of the world’s biggest energy companies are proving to be streets ahead of most governments when it comes to preparing for what they see as the inevitable need to do something about carbon dioxide emissions.

In a development that sits very uncomfortably with the second-rate thinking of tub-thumpers like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, and the craven and populist agendas of politicians like Tony Abbott, major corporations including Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell are developing their operations in the expectation of some form of carbon tax at either an international, regional or national level.

An illuminating article in the December 14 edition of The Economist reported that many major multinational firms have adopted “internal carbon prices” – attaching a cost to emissions of carbon dioxide produced in their operations – to help them prepare for what they see the inevitability of a national and international carbon pricing regimes.

This is not limited to small, green-hued firms operating at the fringes of the global economy: massive operators including Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Total, Google, Disney, ConocoPhillips and Microsoft have all adopted internal carbon prices.

And they are not being Mickey Mouse in the prices they are setting. Exxon Mobil has put its internal carbon price at $US60 a tonne, BP and Shell at $US40, while Google has their’s at around $US12 a tonne and Microsoft $US6 to 7 a tonne.

For these firms, the price signal serves two purposes. It helps them quantify their risk, and spurs them to develop ways to mitigate that risk by reducing, or at least slowing the growth of, CO2 emissions.

The adoption of a carbon price by the Labor Government was essentially serving the same purpose – preparing the country to be competitive and ahead of the game when carbon pricing regimes begin to operate internationally or in trade between major regions.

Instead, by dumping what had been set up, the Abbott Government is condemning Australia to once again be trying to catch up as the world moves on, to be a policy taker, rather than policy maker.

Thanks Tony, thanks Andrew.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Happy Christmas, and may all monetary policy movements be good ones

Hi
Thank you for subscribing to Outlier this year.
Though macroeconomy and turbulent are not often uttered in the same sentence, it is exciting when they are!
Here’s to an interesting (read, occasionally unsettling) 2014!
Looking forward to sharing ideas.
Outlier

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dire MYEFO numbers just political theatre

The manner by which the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook is being released – a speech by Treasurer Joe Hockey to the National Press Club – tells you all you need to know about what this document is really all about.
For many years now it has been apparent that the main significance of the major Government economic statements, the annual Budget and MYEFO, has been as set pieces of political theatre rather than anything much to do with running the economy.
The days of markets surging or tumbling on Budget forecasts for growth and spending are long gone.
In the hands of Treasurers who were able political operators (think Paul Keating and Peter Costello), Budgets were more about imagery than numbers.
Keating had his emblematic turns of phrase, like “this is the one [Budget] that brings home the bacon”. During the 2000s, Costello delivered a string of Budgets with “surprise” revenue upgrades (to the extent that Treasury’s forecasting abilities became the butt of jokes).
This is how Hockey’s performance today needs to be viewed.
When he bemoans the parlous state of Government finances bequeathed to him by Labor, take it as a piece of political theatre, rather than an unsentimental appraisal of the fiscal position.
As has been extensively telegraphed by the Government through a series of leaks, MYEFO is likely to show the Budget deficit has ballooned out to close to $50 billion – a massive deterioration from the $30.1 billion estimated in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in mid-August.
Has the world really become so much darker in the past four months? The short answer is no.
While all the publicity surrounding the departure of Holden and other high profile business problems may have you thinking otherwise, the evidence in fact suggests that things are improving.
Internationally, the US recovery appears to be strengthening, China shows no signs of falling into the hole that many feared, and the euro zone appears to be negotiating the (very) early stages of a recovery.
Domestically, low interest rates are boosting housing activity and the dollar is easing lower. Treasury is basing its gloomier outlook on several developments since PEFO. It says the pick-up in non-mining activity and housing activity is slower than it was expecting, while mining investment has fallen more sharply than anticipated. “As a consequence,” MYEFO says, “employment growth is expected to remain subdued, and wage growth is forecast to remain well below trend.” This in turn will mean households hold back on their spending, restraining growth. All quite plausible.

But as Treasury itself admits, “nominal GDP growth forecasts carry with them additional uncertainty. The 70 per cent confidence interval for average annual nominal GDP growth over the forecast period ranges from 2 per cent to 5 per cent”. That is a not-insignificant range.

The economy’s transition away from mining investment-led growth to other supports for activity remains hesitant, and the speed with which other sources of growth develop is uncertain. But there is evidence that consumers and businesses hare shedding the funk that has held back spending and investment (excepting resources) ever since the GFC.
But the political story line Hockey wants to outline begins with Australia under Labor being driven into the ground. Queue forbidding music, dark skies and storm-lashed seas.
Over coming years, the narrative will go, the storm clouds will gradually dissipate, and at some yet-to-be-determined point in the future (though possibly in the months before the next Federal election) the first rays of economic sunshine will pierce the gloom, and the Coalition will be able to assure voters is has the country on track.
It is all a piece of political alchemy.
The fact is, in recent weeks, Treasury will have presented Hockey with a range of forecasts for nominal GDP (and hence, revenue) that range from the optimistic to the pessimistic, depending on various scenarios regarding developments in international economic conditions, the exchange rate, commodity prices, the rate of slowdown in mining investment and the speed of improvement in activity in other parts of the economy.
For his political purposes, Hockey has plumped for the worst-case scenario of soft growth and weak revenue flows.
This is not to say that Treasury has ‘invented’ the numbers to suit the Government’s political agenda – the forecasts are plausible and justifiable.
But they are just part of a range of possible outcomes, as Treasury itself explains in Attachments A and B in Part 3 of MYEFO.

On page 57, Treasury publishes a chart (Chart 3.9) indicating that “there is notable uncertainty around receipt forecasts and that this uncertainty increases over the estimates period”. For 2013-14, the 70 per cent confidence interval is a range of $20 billion and, at 90 per cent confidence interval, it is $30 billion.

Treasury is similarly cautious about its forecasts for the underlying cash balance (Chart 3.11, p58). The 70 per cent confidence interval for its 2013-14 forecast is $25 billion, and at 90 per cent it is $40 billion.

What the Coalition is doing with the Treasury numbers is nothing new. In the same way, for several years in a row, Labor Budgets contained projections for growth and revenue (particularly earnings from the mining tax) that were much more optimistic than many thought probable, because they supported the-then Government’s political goal of achieving a surplus in a set period.
Don’t get me wrong – Government spending is a problem. But the Coalition so far is taking the same Magic Pudding approach to public finances as Labor.
The current game of deficit/surplus one-upmanship between the major political parties is tiresome and empty.
It will only mean something when there is recognition of the much more important issue (as Rob Burgess highlights in Business Spectator today) of the structural position of the Budget.
The Parliamentary Budget Office forecasts the Budget to be in structural deficit until at least 2016-17, and thought bubbles like the Coalition’s ‘Direct Action’ climate change policy and its over-the-top paid parental leave scheme suggest the Government has no more appetite to tackle the problem than Labor ever did.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized