The case for ending negative rates early


Huw van Steenis

Huw van Steenis

Responsable de la stratégie

Voir tous les articles

Few interventions in history of central banking have been as dramatic as the European Central Bank’s (ECB) expansion of its balance sheet to over €4tn to support the eurozone. The strengthening economic recovery in the eurozone and pickup in inflation mean the debate on how to make an elegant exit from its emergency measures is becoming critical.

The ECB’s success in staving off deflation and preventing a breakup of the euro, often single-handedly, has been Herculean, but it has led to many distortions. The turnaround, the point of inflection between deflation and inflation, could come rather faster than might be comfortable for the ECB, and requires a rethink of its exit strategy from unconventional and expansionary monetary policies.

The market’s working assumption has been that the ECB would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve (Fed). First reduce the scale of asset purchases, then raise rates and then, very slowly, address the €4tn balance sheet. This may prove to be too slow and gradual should economic recovery, and inflationary pressure, really start to take hold. What’s more, the US never undertook the dangerous experiment of negative rates, probably the biggest policy mistake in central banking since the financial crisis.

It would not only be feasible, but actually beneficial, to start raising eurozone interest rates from their present negative level, before ceasing to buy further amounts of government debt.

Negative rates have been highly corrosive to banks’ earnings and broader confidence in the banking system, as I have argued before. Given some 80% of business lending in Europe comes via banks, in stark contrast to the US, one cannot ignore the damage being done.

Last year, eurozone banks made returns of just 5%, no better than 2015, as negative rates dragged down the top line for banks. An unprofitable banking system risks financial stability and is unable to support economic growth. Little wonder the eurozone’s chief banking supervisor, Danièle Nouy, highlighted bank profitability worries a dozen times at the ECB’s annual bank supervision press conference.

Second, the policy mix risks becoming unbalanced. Last month the ECB’s Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations, an Alice Through the Looking Glass scheme that paid banks to lend, came to an end. This policy was designed to ameliorate the harm negative rates would have on eurozone banks. It was meant to nudge banks to lend to companies. While there is little evidence that bank lending is higher as a result of this scheme, it came as a helpful offset. Anyone who doubts this should look at the size of the final round. Banks took €233bn in one day, in effect offsetting 11 months of the ECB’s announced tapering at €20bn per month. As the TLTRO2 scheme is being wound up, we will have an unbalanced negative rate policy.

Third, the Fed now looks likely to raise the official rate three times through 2017. Unless the ECB starts to raise interest rates in line, the margin between short-term rates in the eurozone and in the US will grow quite significantly. It could well put downward pressure on the euro against the dollar, creating inflationary pressure in the eurozone.

Finally, the other benefit of addressing negative rates first is to maintain indirect support for peripheral sovereigns by keeping government borrowing costs in check. Given the political uncertainties in Europe, it could seem foolhardy to withdraw an instrument that helps in this respect.

The biggest challenge to reversing negative rates first is whether it may challenge the credibility of central bank forward guidance today, or in a future crisis. However, the precedent for adjusting rates without undermining forward guidance is strong. The ECB itself has cut rates twice since quantitative easing began, as it became more concerned about deflation. So it could increase rates twice if it was clearly communicated that the central case for inflation and the economy were improving, and tail risks falling. In effect, the ECB would be exiting via the door they came in by.

To make an elegant exit, a gradual policy adjustment should dovetail with a more expansive fiscal policy where possible, greater investment in infrastructure and progress on diversifying the sources of capital for Europe’s companies and infrastructure projects.

Getting the policy mix, sequencing and communication right will be crucial to avoid an inadvertent harsher tightening of financial conditions. Investors will need to be alert to a shifting policy mix.

This article originally appeared in the Financial Times.

 

Information importante: Cette communication est destinée à des fins marketing. Ce document exprime les opinions de ses auteurs sur cette page. Ces opinions ne représentent pas nécessairement celles formulées ou reflétées dans d’autres supports de communication, présentations de stratégies ou de fonds de Schroders. Ce support n’est destiné qu’à des fins d’information et ne constitue nullement une publication à caractère promotionnel. Le support n’est pas destiné à représenter une offre ou une sollicitation d’achat ou de vente de tout instrument financier. Il n’est pas destiné à fournir, et ne doit pas être considéré comme un conseil comptable, juridique ou fiscal, ou des recommandations d’investissement. Il convient de ne pas se fier aux opinions et informations fournies dans le présent document pour réaliser des investissements individuels et/ou prendre des décisions stratégiques. Les performances passées ne constituent pas une indication fiable des résultats futurs. La valeur des investissements peut varier à la hausse comme à la baisse et n’est pas garantie. Tous les investissements comportent des risques, y compris celui de perte du principal. Schroders considère que les informations de la présente communication sont fiables, mais n’en garantit ni l’exhaustivité ni l’exactitude. Certaines informations citées ont été obtenues auprès de sources externes que nous estimons fiables. Nous déclinons toute responsabilité quant aux éventuelles erreurs commises par ou informations factuelles obtenues auprès de tierces parties, sachant que ces données peuvent changer en fonction des conditions de marché. Cela n’exclut en aucune manière la responsabilité de Schroders à l’égard de ses clients en vertu d’un quelconque système réglementaire. Les régions/secteurs sont présentés à titre d’illustration uniquement et ne doivent pas être considérés comme une recommandation d’achat ou de vente. Les opinions exprimées dans le présent support contiennent des énoncés prospectifs. Nous estimons que ces énoncés reposent sur nos anticipations et convictions dans des hypothèses raisonnables dans les limites de nos connaissances actuelles. Toutefois, aucune garantie ne peut être apportée quant à la réalisation future de ces anticipations et opinions. Les avis et opinions sont susceptibles de changer. Ce contenu est publié au Royaume-Uni par Schroder Investment Management Limited, 1 London Wall Place, London EC2Y 5AU. Société immatriculée en Angleterre sous le numéro 1893220. Agréé et réglementé par la Financial Conduct Authority.