Carney's guidance on guidance

Mark Carney

Three weeks on, the word in the City is that the Bank of England's bold experiment in "forward guidance" has flopped.

Mark Carney's implicit message in his speech today was: "Give it time - and if that doesn't work, rest assured that the Monetary Policy Committee will give it something else."

Expectations of future interest rates have risen since that guidance was offered, not fallen, as Mr Carney might have hoped. If that starts to impede growth, the governor said, the Bank "will consider carefully whether, and how best, to stimulate the recovery further".

He also wanted households and businesses to realise that the official Bank rate was the interest rate that mattered most to them.

It's no surprise that long-term interest rates - the rate on 10-year government debt, for example - have risen. Those have gone up nearly everywhere, in response to rising long-term rates in the US.

But in framing its guidance, the MPC had hoped to affect market borrowing rates for two- to five-year loans and below, which are obviously more directly affected by medium-term expectations of the official Bank rate.

As the governor admitted in his speech, those borrowing costs have also risen in the past month. Instead of expecting the first bank rate rise towards the end of 2015, markets now seem to expect it in the first half of that year.

There are two possible explanations. One is that investors and traders - looking at all the good economic news lately - now expect the UK unemployment rate to fall much faster than the Bank does, reaching the new 7% threshold in time to raise bank rate earlier in 2015.

The other possibility is that they simply don't believe that unemployment will set the pace of rate rises: either the MPC will be forced to raise rates, in response to rising inflation, or it will simply go back on its promises, as growth picks up.

Governor Carney repeated today that he doesn't think a faster-than-expected fall in unemployment is likely. Neither, it seems, do most City economists.

A growing population and rising labour force participation mean that the economy has to create around 20,000 jobs a month, just to prevent the unemployment rate from going up.

If productivity - output per head - even just goes back to growing at its long-term trend, we might well not see job creation at that pace over the next year or two. If there's more catch-up growth in productivity, unemployment could well rise before it goes down.

Are investors really that much more gloomy about the UK's productive potential than either the Bank or many city economists? Perhaps. Or maybe they just don't think the 7% threshold will ultimately be binding.

Whatever the explanation, Mr Carney and the Bank continue to have a different view of Britain's economic future from the financial markets. They also seem to have a different view of the Bank's capacity to turn its forecast into reality.

Stephanie Flanders Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 137.

  • rate this

    Comment number 136.

    "...gloomy about the UK's productive potential..." meaning that the UK's productivity would have deteriorated less temporarily than economists assume, so that a given level of output requires more working hours. Bear in mind that aggregate weekly hours worked are already at their highest ever, while output is more than 3% below its peak.

  • rate this

    Comment number 135.

    Interesting article but I am puzzled by your comment "Are investors really that much more gloomy...than either the Bank or many city economists" It seems they are taking a more optimistic view and assuming a more rapid increase in employment surely?

  • rate this

    Comment number 134.

    133 addendum

    This underpricing WAS the fools gold at the heat of interest rates being far too low under Eddie George and then Mervyn King - and they knew about what they were doing at the time - I have my exchange of letters on the subject with both Eddie George and then Mervyn King.

    All they did was to wring their hands and say they only had to manage to the 2% target - WHICH WAS A FIDDLE!

  • rate this

    Comment number 133.

    How to fiddle the RPI & CPI...

    Simple - influence changes in the basket of products and their mix.

    BoE let imported Chinese deflation fiddle the UK index thus allowing products priced in an substantially undervalued currency - such that if the product was made here it would be selling at a loss. This fiddle let the cretins at the BoE grossly underprice money the cause of the bubble & crash!


Comments 5 of 137



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.