Wolfgang Bauer

Race to the Bottom: Eurozone Inflation Rates

In principle, the European Central Bank (ECB) is well in line with its price stability objective, which it defines as a “year-on-year increase in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) for the euro area of below 2%”. Nonetheless, July inflation numbers released last week bring the currency union as a whole dangerously close to deflationary territory. The aggregate HICP annual rate of change for the Eurozone fell to 0.4%, its lowest inflation print since October 2009.

But what has been driving this development? To answer this question we broke down HICP headline inflation numbers into three components: (i) food, alcohol and tobacco (FAT); (ii) energy; and (iii) core inflation, i.e., the remainder when stripping out (i) and (ii) from the headline figure. In the chart below we plotted the contributions of each of these three components to the headline number, calculated by multiplying the annualised monthly changes of the component indices by their respective weights within the overall HICP.

Decomposition of Eurozone Inflation Numbers

Only a relatively small part of the substantial drop in HICP headline inflation from 3.0% in the end of 2011 to currently 0.4% can be attributed to core inflation. Admittedly, core inflation contribution has fallen from 1.1% to 0.6% in this time period but compared to the other two components it has been much more stable. This result intuitively makes sense as core inflation comprises very different items, such as clothing, healthcare and communications. The inherent diversification subdues core rate volatility as fluctuations in individual item levels are likely to balance out each other to a certain degree. The fall in Eurozone inflation has mainly been caused by FAT and energy. Whereas FAT and energy boosted headline inflation by 0.7% and 1.3%, respectively, in November 2011, by now both components have essentially become a drag, chipping off 0.1% each from the July 2014 aggregate figure. Declining inflation rates in the Eurozone can at least partially be explained by a strengthening of the Euro vs. USD (c. USD 1.27 per EUR in the beginning of 2012 to a peak level of c. USD 1.39 in early May 2014), having a deflationary effect on import prices. In recent months, when the exchange rate trend started to reverse, the oil price dropped sharply (c. USD 114 per barrel Brent in mid June 2014 to currently c. USD 102), which helped to put downward pressure on energy prices. It will be interesting to see how geopolitical developments in the Ukraine and the Middle East are going to affect energy inflation contributions in the months to come.

Now let’s turn towards inflation rates of individual countries. The two biggest Eurozone economies, Germany and France, showed July inflation rates clearly below 1% (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively). The periphery experienced either no inflation at all (Italy with 0%) or even deflation (Spain with -0.4%, Portugal with -0.7%, Greece with -0.8%). Undoubtedly, these numbers are low. But how do they compare with historical inflation rates? We took a look at the past ten years of inflation rate data (HICP annual rates of change, published monthly) for the Eurozone in total, its four main economies and, for comparison, the United States. For each entity, we ranked the numbers from smallest to largest and divided the range of inflation rates into three bands, containing the bottom 25%, middle 50% and top 25% of data points, respectively (see chart below). The white lines mark the border below which the bottom 10% of inflation rate prints are located for each data series. In addition, we highlighted the most recent inflation numbers as well as the figures from one and two years ago.

Current Inflation Numbers in Historic Context

We can draw a number of conclusions from this chart. For instance, inflation rate spans for Germany with 4.2% (-0.7% to 3.5%) and Italy with 4.3% (-0.1% to 4.2%) are significantly smaller than for Spain with 6.6% (-1.3% to 5.3%) and the U.S. with 7.7% (-2.1% to 5.6%). Most importantly, the chart puts the drop in European inflation rates over the past years into some statistical context. July 2012 inflation prints still rank within the middle 50%, or even in the top 25% in the case of Italy. Except for Germany, inflation rates exceeded the ECB’s upper limit of 2% back then. However, the most recent data points from July 2014 can all be found in the bottom 10% of the 10-year inflation rate ranges. German inflation is exactly at and the French figure slightly below their respective bottom 10% thresholds. Italy’s and Spain’s inflation rates have fallen deep into their bottom 10% ranges. Italy’s current 0% inflation figure marks in fact the country’s second lowest monthly reading within the past 10 years. In contrast, U.S. consumer price inflation is not on a downward trajectory but numbers have been bouncing back and forth between 1% and slightly above 2.0% over the past two years. The July 2012 print of 1.4%, for example, ranks in the bottom 25%, whereas inflation rates both for July 2013 and July 2014 sit with 2% within the middle 50%.

What does this mean for fixed income investors? For a start, the divergence of European and U.S. inflation rates, in combination with substantial differences in real GDP growth (Eurozone with -0.4% in 2013 and 0% in Q2 2014 vs. U.S. with 2.2% and 4.0%, respectively) and labour market strength (Eurozone with 11.9% unemployment rate in 2013 and 11.6% in Q2 2014 vs. U.S. with 7.4% and 6.2%, respectively), reinforces the argument of an on-going decoupling between the two economic areas. The progressive fall of Eurozone inflation rates well below the 2% level gives the ECB some room for manoeuvre. European interest rates are likely to stay at essentially zero for the time being, and we should not be surprised if more accommodative monetary policies, such as asset purchases, were implemented by the ECB going forward in an attempt to stimulate economic recovery.

Anjulie-Rusius_100

Falling soft commodity prices are a piece of cake

Higher agricultural commodity prices at the start of the year raised concerns about the impact these could have on retail food prices, should the trend prove persistent. Fortunately, the price of soft commodities (coffee, sugar, wheat etc) appears to have decoupled from that of hard commodities (gold, silver, platinum etc) in recent months. Indeed, data from the last seven quarters indicate that the price of many agricultural commodities have actually fallen, as the chart below shows.

Slide1

Coffee prices are now at a five month low, after fears of a shortage of coffee beans from Brazil have receded. The supply of sugar has increased year-on-year, while wheat prices have also fallen due to increased harvests and easing crop concerns.

In order to gauge the collective effect of these changing agricultural commodity prices and how they could potentially feed through into UK inflation, I have constructed a simple cake index, teaming up Global Commodity Price data with some basic recipes from the BBC Good Food website. Given that sponge and individual cakes are two of the representative items included in the CPI 2014 basket of goods – and that food and drink items make up 11.2% of the overall CPI index – combining the commodities in this way gives an indication of how future changes might affect the average consumer.

The graph below shows the results of the cake index, demonstrating the change in various cake costs (since October 2012) versus the UK CPI (yoy %). What’s interesting is the generally downward trend of all cake indices in the last seven quarters. Sponge cake and plain scones look particularly good value in recent months, owing to the high proportion of wheat in their recipes. Apple cake unsurprisingly provides a price signal for its key ingredient (the price of apples has fallen 4% YTD), while coffee cake gives a less pronounced but similar effect. The good news – particularly for lovers of chocolate cake – is that despite the persistent increase in the cost of cocoa, the price of other cake constituents such as sugar, wheat and palm oil (used as a proxy for butter) have all fallen sufficiently to offset this, bringing the price of chocolate cake lower in recent months.

Slide2

Despite the recent June increase in CPI to 1.9% yoy, due to the lag between raw commodity prices and their general price level, we should perhaps expect to see deflation feeding into cake prices and the overall food constituent of CPI in the coming months. Therefore although it is unclear who exactly was the first to declare “let them eat cake!”, this person may have been on to something. Personally, I’d recommend the (relatively cheap) scones.

Ana_Gil_100

The reliability of market and consumer inflation expectations

After yesterday’s poor U.S. GDP number and despite Mark Carney’s seemingly dovish testimony before the Treasury Select Committee, the Bank of England is increasingly looking like it will be the first of the major central banks to hike rates. At this stage, the BoE can retain its dovish stance because inflation is not an issue. However, in an environment of falling unemployment, early signs of a pick-up in wage inflation, rising house prices and stronger economic growth, consumers and markets may increasingly begin to focus on inflation. In anticipation, we think now is a good time to compare the inflation forecasting performance of markets and consumers.

In the graphs below we have compared UK RPI bond breakevens (a measure of market inflation expectations) with the Bank of England’s Gfk NOP Inflation Attitudes Survey (i.e. a UK household survey with over 1900 respondents consisting of nine questions on expectations for interest rates and inflation). An important point to note is that the analysis compares realised inflation (% yoy) with what survey expectations and breakeven rates indicated 2 years before.

How reliable are inflation expectations?

The comparison presents a number of interesting results:

Unexpected deflation: Both the survey and breakevens underestimated actual RPI inflation outcomes between 2006-2008 (in other words, nobody anticipated the inflationary shock coming from higher commodity/energy prices).  In 2008, UK RPI was rising at an annual rate of 5.2% as high oil prices were feeding through into higher energy bills. Market and consumer inflation expectations largely ignored the higher inflation numbers, a sign the central bank inflation targeting credibility remained strong.

UK RPI turned negative in 2009 as the world plunged into recession and the BOE cut interest rates. The market eventually began to price in deflation but only after RPI turned negative. For example, in November 2008 the 2 year breakeven was -1.4%, the actual RPI print in November 2010 was 4.7%. Owing 2 year gilt linkers relative to conventional 2 year gilts directly after the financial crisis was a great trade.

Deflation (and recessions) appear particularly hard to forecast, for consumers and markets alike. This is because consumers and markets tend to anchor their future expectations off current inflation (and growth) readings.

Post-crisis unanchoring:  Consumer inflation expectations generally underestimated realised inflation up until the global financial crisis, and has overestimated it since then, a possible sign that the crisis-recession years may have affected consumer views on the BoE’s commitment to fight inflation. Between 2000 and 2009, 2 year-ahead expected inflation averaged 2.5%. Since 2009, it has averaged 3.4%, almost one percentage point higher; suggesting a lower level of confidence that price stability will be achieved and also reflecting the higher RPI prints post 2009.

Surprisingly similar forecasts: Breakeven and survey rates differed only slightly over the sample period, with the largest gap (400bps) opening up in October 2008 after the Lehman crash. This was probably caused by the forced unwind of leveraged long inflation trades combined with a huge flight to quality bid for nominal government bonds, which distorted the market implied inflation rate. The average differential through the period (excluding years 08-09) is just 8bps. Nevertheless, breakevens seem to track RPI better since consumer surveys are usually carried out on a quarterly basis whilst the former are traded and re-valued with higher frequency. This makes them better at capturing quick moves and turning points in inflation.

Future expectations: Over the next 2 years, both consumers and markets expect RPI to rise above the current level of 2.6%. With a 2.7% implied breakeven, 2-year gilt linkers look relatively inexpensive today.

Of course, breakevens are far from being a perfect measure of inflation, as they embed inflation and liquidity risks premia, but they do appear to be better predictors of future inflation relative to consumer surveys. That does not mean survey-based data does not provide us with useful information, and for this purpose we launched the M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey last year (available here). Consumer inflation expectations affect a number of economic variables, including consumer confidence, retail spending, and unit labour costs. However, during inflection points, such as the one we may be going through at present and in a world of approaching shifts in monetary policy, the timeliness of breakevens could represent an advantage that makes it worthwhile to follow them carefully.

Ana_Gil_100

The M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey – Q2 2014

Today we are launching the next wave of the M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey which aims to assess consumer expectations of inflation over the short and medium term.

With interest rates at multi century lows, central banks continue to inject large amounts of monetary stimulus into the global economy. Recent inflation rates in the US, UK and Germany have proved central to the current market focus, as actions from policymakers have become increasingly sensitive to inflation trends.  This is true for the Fed and the BoE, as markets assess their possible exit strategies/timing, but especially for the ECB, whose last round of action is perceived to have been largely motivated by disinflationary pressures in the Euro area. In that context, market focus on inflation expectations has increased.

The results of the May 2014 M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey suggest that both short and medium-term inflation expectations remain well anchored across most European countries.

Short-term expectations have risen from 2% to 2.3% in the UK as the country showed further signs of economic growth and reaccelerating wage pressure. On the other hand, inflation expectations for German consumers moderated in the last quarter as the downward trend in German HICP (1.1% YoY in April) may have added to the expectation that German inflation will remain subdued over the next year.

The general downward trend in short-term inflation expectations seems to have largely receded in all EMU countries and the UK. This may be somewhat surprising with much of Europe still experiencing low and falling inflation.

Inflation expectations – 12 months ahead

Over the medium term, inflation expectations remain above central bank targets in all countries surveyed, suggesting that consumers may lack confidence in policymakers’ effectiveness in achieving price stability. Over 5 years, UK inflation is expected to remain well anchored at a remarkably stable 3%. Despite recent low inflation rates across Europe, the majority of consumers in France, Italy and Spain continue to view inflation as a concern, and long-term expectations in those countries has risen back to 3%.

Inflation expectations – 5 years ahead

The findings and data from our May survey, which polled over 8,700 consumers internationally, is available in our latest report here or via @inflationsurvey on Twitter.

jim_leaviss_100

Who is to blame for shrinking real wages in the UK? Nobody?

The squeeze on UK consumers through falling real wages has been regarded as a significant factor in the (until recently) anaemic economic recovery.  Employers have taken a good share of the blame for this – but is that fair?  Have employers deliberately kept earnings below inflation as a means of boosting their own profitability, or was this an unintended outcome of upside inflation shocks?

If we look at Eurostat’s nominal wage growth series in the UK since the credit crisis, it’s only in the last couple of years that nominal wage growth has been well below the Bank of England’s inflation target of 2%.  In 2008 nominal wage growth was 6.1%, 2009 1.8%, 2010 3.6%, and 2011 2.1%.

It’s only in 2012 that Nominal Wage Growth fell way below the BOE’s inflation target

And yet over those same years, Labour Productivity per Hour Worked (again Eurostat) was awful.  -1.2% in 2008, -2.3% in 2009, +1.1% in 2010, and +0.7% in 2011.  In other words companies appear to have, ex ante, attempted to compensate their workers for expected inflation, assuming that the Bank of England hit its inflation target, and have overcompensated them, ex post, for improvements in productivity.

Labour productivity has been very weak – and often negative

So has the problem for earnings been the unexpected inflation overshoot (since the credit crisis started CPI has been above the Bank’s 2% target in all but 6 months, in 2009), not the wage setting behaviour of companies? Had inflation come in at, or above target, workers would have been better off in real terms until 2012, and certainly better off than you might expect given the historically strong relationship between wage growth and productivity.  I’m not sure I’m blaming the Bank of England here either – to achieve the 2% inflation target, rates would have had to have been inappropriately high for the domestic demand conditions and the distressed balance sheet of the UK public and private sectors.  And productivity is weak in part because employment has been unexpectedly strong relative to the weakness of the economy.  So a low inflation, high productivity UK economy sounds nice – but in the circumstances would likely have only have been possible with a much deeper recession and higher unemployment rate.

anthony_doyle_100

The M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey – Q4 2013

The M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey for November shows that consumers in all countries surveyed expect inflation to rise from current levels in both one and five years’ time. In the UK, short-term inflation expectations fell over the quarter to 2.8%, following recent downward pressure on UK CPI. It may also suggest that the shock from recent increases in utility bills may be fading. Over five years, however, inflation is once again expected to rise to 3.0%, suggesting expectations for future inflation remain well anchored above the Bank of England’s (BoE) CPI target of 2.0%. We did not see the same spike in inflation expectations as in other recent inflation expectations surveys such as the Bank of England’s own survey, possibly as ours is more recent and was conducted between November 22-25.

In Europe, all countries surveyed with the exception of Switzerland, expect inflation to be equal to or higher than the European Central Bank’s (ECB) CPI target of 2.0% on both a one- and five-year ahead basis. All European Monetary Union (EMU) countries expect inflation to be higher in both one and five years than it is currently, while only two countries – Spain and Switzerland – anticipate it being less than 3.0% in 5 years’ time.

Comparing the results with those from earlier surveys reveals a number of noteworthy observations. Inflation expectations for one year ahead have fallen in all surveyed EMU countries since the start of 2013. This is unsurprising given the weak macroeconomic environment and the fact that commodity prices have declined by roughly 5.6% in the past three months. Consumers have also benefitted from a stronger euro, which has gained around 6.6% over the past year on a real effective exchange rate (REER) basis. Notably, short-term inflation expectations in France, Spain and Italy are now running well above their current inflation rates.

Survey respondents in Hong Kong show no signs of moderating their inflation expectations, which remain at a high level of 5.0% and 5.5% over one and five years, respectively. In Singapore, inflation expectations over one year are double current inflation (2%) whilst the five-year reading remains stable at 5.0%, as it has done throughout the course of 2013.

The findings and data from our November survey, which polled over 8,500 consumers internationally, is available in our latest report here or via @inflationsurvey on Twitter.

ben_lord_100

The M&G YouGov Inflation Expectations Survey – Q3 2013

Despite high unemployment rates, excess capacity and a sanguine inflation outlook from the major central banks, it is important to keep an eye on any potential inflation surprises that may be coming down the line. For instance, we only need to look at ultra easy monetary policy; low interest rates and improving economic growth to see that the risk of an unwelcome inflation shock is higher than perhaps at any time over the past five years. The development of forward guidance measures is a clear sign that central banking has evolved substantially from 2008 in the form of Central Bank Regime Change. It appears that there is a growing consensus that inflation targeting is not the magical goal of monetary policy that many had once believed it to be and that full employment and financial stability are equally as important.  Given that monetary policy appears firmly focused on securing growth in the real economy – at perhaps the expense of inflation targets – we thought that it would be useful to gauge the short and long-term inflation expectations of consumers across the UK, Europe and Asia. The findings from our August survey, which polled over 8,000 consumers internationally, is available in our latest report here.

The results suggest consumers continue to lack confidence that inflation will decline below current levels in either the short or medium term. Despite evidence that short-term inflation expectations may be moderating in some countries, most respondents expect inflation to be higher in five years than in one year. Confidence that the European Central Bank will achieve its inflation target over the medium term remains weak, while confidence in the Bank of England has risen.

The survey found that consumers in most countries continue to expect inflation to be elevated in both one and five years’ time. In the UK, inflation is expected to be above the Bank of England’s CPI target of 2.0% on a one- and five-year ahead basis. All EMU countries surveyed expect inflation to be equal to or higher than the European Central Bank’s HICP target of 2.0% on a one- and five-year ahead basis. Long-term expectations for inflation have changed little in the three months since the last survey, with the majority of regions expecting inflation to be higher than current levels in five years. Five countries expect inflation to be 3.0% or higher in one year: Austria, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore and the UK.

Consumers in Austria, Germany and the UK have reported an increase in one year inflation expectations compared with those of the last survey three months ago. This is of particular relevance for the UK, where the Bank of England has stated three scenarios under which the Bank would re-assess its policy of forward guidance. The first of these “knockouts” refers to a scenario where CPI inflation is, in the Bank’s view, likely to be 2.5% or higher over an 18-month to two-year horizon. Short-term inflation expectations in Singapore and Spain continued their downward trend in the latest survey results, registering their third straight quarter of lower expectations.

Inflation expectations - 12 months ahead

Over a five-year horizon, the inflation expectations of consumers in Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have risen. Whilst inflation expectations in Switzerland remain at the lowest level in our survey at 2.8%, consumers have raised their expectations from 2.5% in February. Long-term inflation expectations in France and the UK remained stable at 3.0%. Meanwhile, consumers in Hong Kong and Singapore have the highest expectations, at 5.0%, although the Hong Kong number shows a decline from 5.8% three months ago.

Inflation expectations - 12 months ahead

anthony_doyle_100

The Fed didn’t taper – what’s next for US monetary policy and bond markets?

Last night the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) delivered a massive surprise by deciding to not taper QE. For us, this isn’t a huge deal. Since May, the market has placed way too much emphasis and concern over tapering and lost focus on the fundamental economic situation that the US has now found itself in – an economy where unemployment has fallen to 7.3% (helped by a falling participation rate) and a central bank that remains dovish due to a declining trend in core inflation. Now we are through the Fed meeting, arguably the market will now re-focus on the economic data. With interest rate policy set to remain very accommodative for a long period of time – even after balance sheet neutrality has been achieved – the sell-off in government bonds may be close to coming to an end (as witnessed by the 19bps fall in the US 10 year yield from 2.89% yesterday afternoon to 2.70% this morning).

US 10yr bond yields during quantitative easing

Fed concern number 1: US core PCE inflation is flirting with historic low levels

It is well known that FOMC Chairman Ben Bernanke, a student of the US economic depression of the 1930s, has great concerns about deflation and in 2002 gave a speech outlining how the US could avoid a deflationary trap which gave him the moniker “Helicopter Ben”. In the speech, Bernanke makes the important statement that “…Congress has given the Fed the responsibility of preserving price stability (among other objectives), which most definitely implies avoiding deflation as well as inflation.”

The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, the core PCE, is exhibiting a worrying downward trend. This greatly concerns at least one member of the FOMC – St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard – who believes the FOMC should have more strongly signalled its willingness to defend its inflation target of 2 per cent in light of recent low inflation readings. The Fed minutes from the June meeting (at which Bullard dissented) showed that Bullard believed that the Fed was not doing enough to protect against the threat of deflation and that the FOMC must defend its inflation target when inflation is below target as well as when it is above target.

A key component of the Fed’s dual mandate – price stability – is clearly below where the FOMC wants it to be. There are big risks to reducing stimulatory monetary policy when core inflation is running at recessionary levels and on this measure suggests any interest rate hikes a long way away.

 

Inflation trending lower on both total and core PCE

Fed concern number 2: the labour market

The latest payroll report was weaker than market economists had become used to, with payroll growth averaging around 148,000 over the past three months. This is some way off the 200,000+ numbers that the consensus was expecting earlier in the year and confirms a deceleration in the trend in nonfarm payroll growth. Yes, the unemployment rate fell to 7.3%, but this was largely the result of the labour force shrinking and a decline in the participation rate in August. The labour market is not as strong as the headline number suggests.

Arguably, the fall in the unemployment rate has surprised most Fed members. Nonetheless, unemployment is not expected to fall to the 6.5% “think about raising interest rates” level until late 2014. It would have been a confusing message to start to implement tapering given the lower trend in job creation. The Fed reiterated that the economy and labour market have to be strong enough before in contemplates reducing asset purchases going forward. This helps to explain why the FOMC sat on its hands in September.

 

Unemployment rate quickly falling towards Fed thresholds

Fed concern number 3: the increase in mortgage rates

Following the moves in markets over the summer, the average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage has now increased to around 4.5% from 3.4% in May. Essentially, the market has already tightened for the Fed. The housing market is a vital component of US economic growth, and this increase will cut into housing affordability. It could also force potential homebuyers out of the market. A slowing housing market means fewer jobs, less consumption, and lower growth. The increase in yields in the government bond market has been brutal, and does pose some risks to interest-sensitive sectors.

 

The rise in 30 year mortgage rates will concern the Fed

Given the above, it appears that the Fed refused to be bullied into tapering today by the bond markets, though tapering speculation may have reduced the “froth” that had developed in risk assets over the first half of 2013. It is likely that low inflation, a recovering labour market, and a slowing housing market will ensure that interest rate policy remains accommodative for the foreseeable future. The “Fed fake” suggests that tapering is truly data dependent and not predetermined. Macro matters.

As the market begins to refocus on the economic data, it is likely that government bonds may find some support. Additionally, the FOMC may reduce bond purchases slower than anyone currently expects. We expect that market concerns over the impact of tapering decisions will likely diminish over time as the Fed slowly and gradually moves towards a neutral balance sheet policy next year.

jamestomlins_100

Monster Munch update – a victory for bondvigilantes.com

One of our most popular posts of all time was written back in 2011. The subject was not the US losing its AAA rating, the impact of the default of Lehman Brothers or any other weighty matter of great economic import, but rather a quick look at how packets of Monster Munch were getting smaller over time and the associated inflationary impact.

Hence my surprise when I went into a shop last weekend and saw that Monster Munch packets have now been restored to their old 40g size, replacing the measly and frankly unsatisfying 22g version of recent times.

Slide1

Further research on the manufacturer’s website revealed that

“ … The re-launch comes in response to growing consumer demand and will take Monster Munch back to the original retro pack design and old texture, flavour and crunchiness that consumers remember and love … Consumers have made it clear through both our own research and within online communities that they miss Monster Munch the way it used to be ..”

I like to think that our blog was the spark that lit the fuse of this virtual nostalgia-laden fast food insurgency. A resounding victory for bondvigilantes.com fighting in the name of consumer activism!

But wait, it gets better. Back in October 2011, the M&G coffee shop charged 45p for 22g, or 2.05 pence per gram. Today, the same shop charges 65p (RRP 50p) for a 40g packet, or 1.63 pence per gram. This is a fall of 20.5% in nominal terms. Put simply, you are also getting more for your money.

However, before we applaud the manufacturer for their largesse, let’s look at the main raw material. Back in October 2011, we pointed out that the headline cost of Monster Munch closely followed the corn price.

Slide2

Since October 2011 the corn future has fallen by around 28.5% in price to $4.64 per bushel, a rare case of deflation in recent times. In sterling terms, the fall is around 25.5%. Accordingly, the dramatic fall off in corn prices has allowed the manufacturer to pass on part of this benefit to consumers, reducing the headline per gram price, but at the same time retaining some of the benefit in the form of an enhanced profit margin.

So whilst we cannot claim all the credit for this victory, this is a rare piece of welcome news for the consumer of corn based snacks.

 

This entry was posted in inflation and tagged by . Bookmark the permalink.

Please note the content on this website is for Investment Professionals only and should be shared responsibly. No other persons should rely on the information contained within this website.

ben_lord_100

In search of satisfaction – our analysis of the BoE press conference

Listening to the Bank of England Quarterly Inflation Report press conference – the first with Mark Carney steering the ship – a song immediately sprung to mind. The song was written by a former student of the London School of Economics, Sir Michael “Mick” Jagger with his colleague Keith Richards in 1965. There is no better way to analyse the current thinking of the Bank of England than through one of The Rolling Stones best songs, (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction.

I can’t get no satisfaction

The new BoE Governor began with the positive news that “a recovery appears to be taking hold”. This wasn’t news to the markets, as more recently we have seen a remarkably strong string of economic data. However, the very next word in Mr Carney’s introduction was “But…”. What followed was, in my opinion, the most dovish sounding central bank policy announcement since the darkest days of the financial crisis.

Carney firmly announced his arrival as the global independent (excluding BoJ) central banking community’s uber-dove through the acknowledgement of a broadening economic recovery in the UK, and then making explicit that the BoE remains poised to conduct more, not less, monetary stimulus. Until now, these two conditions were considered by bond markets to be pretty much incompatible.

’Cause I try and I try and I try and I try

Carney told us that the BoE will maintain extreme monetary slack (in terms of both the 0.5% base rate and the £375 billion of gilts held) until the unemployment rate has fallen to at least 7%. He went even further than this, stating the MPC is ready to increase asset purchases (QE) until this condition is met. However, there are two conditions under which the BoE would break the new, explicit link between monetary stimulus and unemployment: namely, high inflation and threats to financial stability. Did the new governor have to put these caveats in place because other members of his committee would only agree to the announcement if they were mentioned?

Supposed to fire my imagination

The new framework announcements were broadly in-line with what we were expecting. In that respect, the Governor’s major announcement was not too much of a surprise. The market agreed and there was a relatively muted response. Carney was supposed to fire our imaginations, so the question is – did we learn anything new? The “yes” and “no” arguments are outlined in the below table.

2013-08 ben blog

When I’m watchin’ my T.V. and that man comes on to tell me how [the economy should] be…

The market suspected Mr Carney would bring in some forward guidance, but I think the most interesting implication of this announcement today is that he felt the need to do something, but did not feel the need to increase asset purchases through QE. Mervyn took on the first part of Friedman’s equation, the supply of money. This was not inflationary as the transmission mechanism was broken, and the cash was hoarded and not released into the real economy. Could Carney be the governor to focus on the second part of the equation, money velocity? Forward guidance is designed to give individuals and companies the confidence to borrow in order to spend or invest. If they do, velocity will return as the transmission mechanism repairs. I believe we are considerably less likely to see an increase in QE under the new governor.

If forward guidance does not have the consequences Carney intends, and my belief that he is more focused on the transmission mechanism than his predecessor, what might Carney do next? At that point, he might increase schemes akin to Funding for Lending, and hand banks cheap funds at the point at which the banks release the loans to borrowers. This way, banks are heavily incentivised to lend at levels that are attractive to individuals and companies.

He’s tellin’ me more and more, about some useless information

Carney told us that if and when unemployment reaches 7%, policy will start to tighten. But then he stated that if inflation exceeds 2.5% on the BoE’s shocking 2 year forecast (is this a rise in the inflation target?), or if inflation expectations move beyond some unannounced bound, or if financial stability is under threat, then he might have to break the newly explicit link between unemployment and monetary policy. And then he stated that even if unemployment hits 7%, this will not trigger a policy change, but a discussion around one.

I don’t think we actually got pure forward guidance, but a pretty muddled variant thereof. Bond markets are rightly unsure as to how to react, and have struggled for a satisfying interpretation. All we can really take from the BoE is that they will need to be sufficiently satisfied that the UK economy has reached escape velocity before hiking rates or reversing policy.

Page 1 of 612345...Last »