US Dollar Down, or Euro Up?
Alan Reynolds notes that there are two sides to any exchange rate:
Is the dollar down or is the euro up? It is the same thing viewed from different sides, of course. Yet the topic is too often viewed from just one side. Looking at the dollar alone, many economists blame the Fed for lowering interest rates. Viewed from the other side, however, one might wonder why other central banks have not lowered their interest rates.
Rising currencies are not necessarily a sign of strength. The U.S. dollar rose sharply before and during the recession of 2001. The trade-weighted index of the dollar’s value against 26 currencies rose 10.5% from March 2000 to January 2002, as the stock market and economy tumbled…
The euro’s recent rise involved betting on the expectation that the Fed will soon cut interest rates again, but also that the ECB will not follow suit. Yet the ECB has always followed the Fed’s interest-rate moves, albeit quite slowly. The ECB did not begin reducing rates until May 2001—five months later than the Fed. And the ECB did not put rates above 2% until December 2005—a year later than the Fed.
posted on 15 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
The Cato Institute’s 25th Annual Monetary Conference
The Cato Institute held its 25th Annual Monetary Conference yesterday. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke used the occasion to announce some important enhancements in the transparency of the Federal Reserve’s economic forecasts. The WSJ’s RTE blog has a round-up of reactions to the changes.
posted on 15 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
‘A Society Like Sweden’
As the government and opposition compete to see who can add the most complexity to the federal tax-spending churn, Rupert Murdoch suggests an alternative approach:
Mr Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, owner of The Australian, said: “We are very lucky in Australia, there are no huge economic challenges. But taking a macro view, all political parties seem to be making an effort to become a society like Sweden, to create a dependency mentality as against an aspirational one.”
Mr Murdoch, in an interview with The Australian in Melbourne ahead of a News shareholder briefing in Adelaide today, declined to answer any questions on the election campaign.
He said he was not close enough to it. “I don’t want to say anything remotely close to Australian politics,” Mr Murdoch said.
However, he noted that “all governments are raking in indecent amounts of tax, which they should do something with, either by investing in infrastructure or handing it all back to the people”.
“Australia should certainly slash the capital gains tax,” he said. “There are people who hold shares for 20 years and won’t sell because they will lose it in tax. When the US cut its tax to 15 per cent, revenue doubled and people did something with it.”
He praised the more aspirational nature of American society, “where people want to change and do something about it, accelerating change with innovation”.
posted on 14 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Politics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Peter Costello and Interest Rates
A remarkable story, if true:
Jon Faine on ABC 774 in Melbourne has revealed yet another extraordinarily ill advised conversation between a leading politician and a journalist.
The Treasurer, Peter Costello, was in Faine’s studios in late September and during a break for the news, Faine said to him: “I can’t believe you haven’t called the election to get it out of the way before the cup day interest rate rise.
“He looked me in the eye. He put his thumb down as he sat there in the chair and he said, ‘There will not be a rate rise in November. Take it from me.’
“I said : ‘You might be right, you might be wrong, but you’re prepared to punt on it.’
“And he said : ‘There will not be a rate rise in November.’…
How is it that the Treasurer of the country could so misread the mood of the Reserve Bank Board when virtually every analyst in the country was predicting the opposite?
posted on 08 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Politics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Blame Martin Place III
The statement accompanying today’s increase in official interest rates on the part of Reserve Bank confirms what was already effectively implied by the Q3 CPI outcome:
By the March quarter of next year, both headline and underlying measures of inflation are likely to be above 3 per cent.
This forecast presumably includes the anticipated impact of today’s tightening. The RBA will be unable to publish a target-consistent inflation forecast in its November Statement on Monetary Policy. The RBA is effectively admitting to a monetary policy mistake. It is Governor Stevens rather than John Howard who should be in the dock.
The question that has to be asked now is, what path will official interest rates have to follow to bring the inflation forecast back into the 2-3% target range? On this, the RBA was characteristically silent. There is really no excuse for the RBA failing to spell this out in today’s statement or next week’s quarterly Statement on Monetary Policy. The RBA continues to short-change the public with its lack of transparency in relation to its future policy intentions. The Bank is only making its job harder, by robbing itself of the ability to let market-determined interest rates do some of the required tightening work. Interbank futures are still giving less than a 40% chance to a follow-up tightening in December.
posted on 07 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Politics
(2) Comments | Permalink | Main
Who’s to Blame for Higher Interest Rates?
Andrew Norton notes a Gallaxy poll on interest rates:
‘If interest rates rise again in the near future, which of the following do you believe is mainly to blame?’
The political answer, John Howard, received blame from only 12% of respondents - 17% of Labor voters and 3% of Coalition voters. The other responses were ‘international factors’ (37%), the Australian economy (30%), and the Reserve Bank (14%).
‘International factors’ and the ‘Australian economy’ happen to be the most correct answers. It suggests that the electorate are actually much less parochial than the commentariat and also understand the endogeneity of interest rates to economic conditions. If the electorate can grasp these basics, what’s the commentariat’s excuse?
posted on 06 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Politics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Equines and Equities: The Cup Day Effect
Alan Wood considers the Melbourne Cup Day effect:
Worthington applies econometric techniques to isolate the impact of the Cup from the other stock market anomalies, such as the day-of-the-week effect, mentioned earlier. He studies closing prices on the
Australian Stock Exchange over the 45 years from January 3, 1961 to December 30, 2005 - 11,327 trading days. And what does he find? Stock market returns on Melbourne Cup day are not only significantly higher than on any other Tuesday in November, but also higher than on any other Tuesday of the year.
They are also higher than Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday returns throughout the year, and less volatile.
In short, the Melbourne Cup is associated with abnormally high returns on the Australian stock exchange. On Melbourne Cup day in 2005 alone, the Cup was associated with abnormal gains of more than $2 billion.
posted on 06 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
State Capitalism: The Rise of Sovereign Wealth Funds
Alan Wood discusses some of the issues around the emergence of sovereign wealth funds, including Australia’s Future Fund:
An emerging theme in international discussion is the return of state capitalism. After decades of privatisation and the retreat of government from state ownership of enterprises, sovereign governments are becoming a major force in global asset markets…
Although most Australians don’t realise it, Peter Costello’s Future Fund, perhaps soon to become Kevin Rudd’s plaything, is a sovereign wealth fund. And in a world where the lack of transparency and accountability of sovereign wealth funds is a major concern, it is open to criticism…
Their assets are already larger than hedge funds ($US1 trillion to $US1.5 trillion) and private equity funds ($US700 billion to $US1.1 trillion).
And their assets are growing rapidly.
Standard Chartered estimates they could total $US13.4 trillion in a decade. They already hold over 1 per cent of the world’s total stock of equities, bonds and bank deposits and could hold 5 per cent or more of the global stock of financial assets in a decade.
posted on 03 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
More Hints of Possible RBA Reform
More hints of possible RBA reform under Governor Stevens:
Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens has refused to rule out changing the RBA’s current policy of not publishing board minutes.
At a speech in Sydney on Wednesday night, Mr Stevens said he had an open mind on the publication of minutes, but would want any policy change to ensure that the robustness of boardroom debate was not crimped.
posted on 01 November 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
DIY CPI
Australia and New Zealand are among the few developed countries not to publish a monthly CPI, producing a quarterly series instead. In Australia, the ABS have always argued that a higher frequency CPI does not stack-up on a cost-benefit basis. Yet it would seem most unlikely that the cost-benefit calculus in Australia and New Zealand would be substantially different from the many comparable countries that somehow manage to produce a monthly CPI.
In Australia, TD Securities and the Melbourne Institute have teamed-up to produce a monthly CPI, that has a low tracking error with the official series.
The National Bank in New Zealand are now looking to do something similar and are calling for help from fellow kiwis:
There seems little appetite across policy circles for producing a monthly CPI. So we are going to take it upon ourselves to fill the void. To do this we need your help. For simplicity we’re going to limit ourselves to a domestic or non-tradable inflation measure. The technological age means it is possible to capture many areas of domestic inflation via the internet, which we’ve already started doing. Alas we have gaps, and need your help. So if you’re engaged as a medical practitioner, dentist, mechanic, plumber, electrician, builder, vet, lawyer, accountant, real estate agent, property maintenance, gymnasium, early childhood centre, physiotherapist, or hairdresser (yes we know this is a long-shot), we’d love to have your input. Full confidentiality conditions would apply and we’ll use technology to make responding easy just like the Business Outlook. Just email cameron.bagrie at nbnz.co.nz if you are prepared to help the nation out!
posted on 31 October 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
RBA Reform Under Rudd?
Opposition Treasury spokesman Wayne Swan flags possible changes to the appointment process for the RBA Board under a prospective Labor Government:
“I am very interested in talking to the reserve bank governor about a new method, open and transparent, of appointing the best possible person available.”
Mr Swan said he would seek the advice of current reserve bank governor Glenn Stevens to discuss ways of implementing a more transparent appointment process.
“I would seek the advice of the current reserve bank governor in constructing a process that would do that,” Mr Swan said.
“We have a number of ex-reserve bank governors around the country, maybe we can put a panel together where they could put together a list of names, for example.
“I want an open transparent process that gives the best person for the job, irrespective of their political affiliation or what fundraising they have done for any political party.
Instead of overhauling the appointments process for the Board, a more significant reform would be to bring the RBA into line with the practices of other central banks and separate monetary policymaking from the Board and place it into the hands of an expert committee, made up of the Bank’s senior officers and outside appointees and excluding the Treasury Secretary. The monetary policy committee should then be required to release a summary of proceedings and a record of any votes taken at the conclusion of each meeting. By ensuring a high degree of transparency, there is less of a burden on the appointment process in maintaining the integrity of monetary policy, since the behavior of committee members would be subject to a degree of scrutiny that is entirely absent under current arrangements.
posted on 30 October 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Politics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
The Business Spectator
The Business Spectator has finally launched and promises to provide a welcome alternative to the unreadable Australian Financial Review:
Now you’ll never have to wait (or pay) for the news (or analysis) that counts. Business Spectator has filled the gap, providing Australians with real-time business news and commentary 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Business Spectator also includes a moderated, blog-style section called The Conversation:
The Conversation will combine the best elements of a letters-to-the-editor page, a blog, an online forum and a roundtable discussion. We want to create a place where Australia’s business community can exchange views, react to the news or set the agenda.
posted on 30 October 2007 by skirchner in Culture & Society, Economics, Financial Markets
(5) Comments | Permalink | Main
Tax Cuts and Interest Rates - Again
Terry McCrann continues to do battle with the ‘tax cuts lead to higher interest rates’ brigade:
what would have happened if the Government had taken the advice of, in particular, Access Economics and tried to bank them.
Since that 2005 budget which projected a $9 billion 2008-09 surplus—itself after spending $10 billion in the 2008-09 year. That’s to say, the projected 2008-09 deficit even back then could have been $19 billion but for the 2005 tax cut.
Since then the Government has spent a further $50 billion, in the 2008-09 year alone. If not spent, ceteris paribus it would now be projecting a $63 billion surplus for that one year. With similar huge surpluses for this year and the other years in the budget forecasting framework…
Macquarie Bank’s Rory Robertson seems to think he’s rediscovered the fiscal wheel, by arguing that the tax cuts have been fiscally stimulatory. Well, looked at in isolation, of course they are, Rory. Looked at in the totality of revenue change from one year to the next, not having them would have been contractionary. If you think going from a $15 billion surplus in 2005-06 to a $63 billion surplus in 2008-09 would equate to fiscal neutrality, Rory, we will have to agree to disagree.
Interest rates are as high as they are, and heading slightly higher, not fundamentally because of the tax cuts, but because of the seminal upshift in our prosperity of which the surging budget revenues that fund the tax cuts are the manifestation.
McCrann argues that ‘analytically it is beyond absurd to suggest the Government could have in theory sat on a $63 billion surplus.’ Indeed, with Commonwealth debt paid off, the government would have little choice but to recycle these surpluses via the accumulation of assets in the Future Fund. Unless the bulk of these funds were invested offshore, the government would over time effectively nationalise a large share of the domestic stock of equity capital.
posted on 27 October 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Politics
(2) Comments | Permalink | Main
The Conflicted RBA Board
Brad Norrington notes the conflicts of interest sitting around the RBA Boardroom table:
ROGER Corbett faces a potentially excruciating choice when he enters the board room of the Reserve Bank in Sydney’s Martin Place on Melbourne Cup Day, less than two weeks away…
two sides of Mr Corbett’s brain will be talking to him: the independent banker and the hard-headed businessman.
Mr Corbett may no longer head Woolworths, but he still serves as a consultant to the giant retailer.
And Michael Luscombe, Mr Corbett’s successor at Woolworths, has made his view plain: there is no case for a rate rise because the inflation rate at Woolies stores does not justify it…
That courage could only make life more difficult for Mr Corbett and others in his position on the board whose business interests could be affected by the decisions they make. The three permanent members of the Reserve Bank are Mr Stevens, his deputy Ric Battelino, and Ken Henry, the Secretary to the Treasury.
The six others, including Mr Corbett, are external board members and most have links to big corporations that do not want an interest rate hike.
Unlike the US Federal Reserve, which hands out statements every time it holds a meeting and releases deliberations of its minutes every six weeks, deliberations of its Australian equivalent remain secret. When the Reserve successfully tried to block The Australian from seeing its minutes in 2004, former board member Dick Warburton said the release of such information would expose external directors to “undue criticism and pressure from the sectorial groups they nominally represent”.
What transpires in the boardroom may never be known, but the pressure from retail business interests on Mr Corbett and his corporate colleagues inside the room is undeniable.
What makes the RBA exceptional among central banks is not so much the lack of minutes, but the failure to separate monetary policy decision-making from the other governance functions of the Bank Board.
In the US, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Open Market Committee have distinct functions, with the latter determining interest rates (indeed, there is no formal requirement that the Fed Chair also Chair the Open Market Committee). The RBA’s actions before the AAT in seeking to block access to the Board minutes highlighted the incompatibility of the current governance arrangements with the increased transparency and accountability now routinely demanded of other central banks.
posted on 26 October 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Labor’s Tax Policy
Sinclair Davidson and Alex Robson on Labor’s tax policy:
Treasurer Peter Costello is correct when he claims there is a higher tax burden for some taxpayers under the ALP plan: all taxpayers earning between $37,000 and $102,000 will be worse off under Labor.
But the flip side is that some taxpayers will have a lower tax burden and be better off under Labor.
This can be confirmed simply by inspecting the table of figures released by the Treasurer on Sunday. After 2013, for example, those on incomes of $102,000 and above will be better off under Labor because they face lower marginal and average tax rates.
This part of Labor’s plan makes good economic sense. Nobel laureate James Mirrlees, who is leading a comprehensive review of tax policy in Britain, has shown that, even allowing for changes in income inequality, marginal tax rates should fall, not rise, as income increases. This is because the negative supply-side consequences of higher income taxes tend to swamp the inequality effects.
The most recent economic evidence from the US suggests higher income earners - those who will benefit most from Labor’s plan - tend to be the most responsive to changes in their taxable income. By flattening the tax structure, both tax plans move in the right direction.
posted on 26 October 2007 by skirchner in Economics, Financial Markets, Politics
(1) Comments | Permalink | Main
Page 56 of 97 pages ‹ First < 54 55 56 57 58 > Last ›
|
