Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 63

Ian Macfarlane on central bank policies, inflation and China

Ian Macfarlane, AC, was Governor of Reserve Bank of Australia from 1996 to 2006. He is a Director of ANZ Bank, Woolworths and the Lowy Institute for International Policy. He is a member of the International Advisory Board of Goldman Sachs and the International Advisory Board of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.

This is Part 1 of an edited transcript of a Q&A session at the Morningstar Investment Conference on 15 May 2014.

Q: Let’s talk about three main topics: central bank policy, emerging markets with a focus on China, and then a look at Australia.

Since 2009, central banks’ primary role has been stimulating economies through monetary easing. Can you talk us through how this works.

IM: I hope it doesn’t sound too much like an economics lesson. I think of the effects of monetary easing in two parts. The first part is the effect on the real economy, output and employment. There are four channels there: lower interest rates change the economics of some investment plans and lead to new investments; second, there are other aspects of the economy which are interest-rate sensitive such as residential construction, which picks up quickly after an easing; and third, the effect on people who have mortgages (but note only one-third of households have mortgages). When rates go down disposable income goes up so they spend more on consumption. The fourth is that as interest rates go down, other things being equal, the exchange rate may go down, which increases prospects for export industries, and those parts of the domestic economy competing against imports.

That’s the first part, which I describe as the real economy. It increases spending and income and it’s the one everyone focusses on.

The second is the financial part, which is becoming more important. When interest rates go down, simple interest rate products like bank deposits become less attractive, and we see a search for yield. Funds move into equities, property and riskier forms of lending, and this drives up asset prices.

The issue for the US is that the Fed funds rate is effectively zero. It is having an effect and the economy is recovering, although not particularly quickly. So the first channel is working but not as strongly as hoped. The second channel is definitely working, where US equities are at an all-time high. This is the challenge for central banks, and what they fear is that you could end up with an asset price bubble before the real economy is back to full capacity. That’s a worry. It’s probably not going to happen but there is that risk. Part of the reason is that too much weight has been placed on monetary policy. In a perfect world, you would use more fiscal policy, but a number of countries already had large deficits going into the crisis, more debt than they wanted. This over-reliance on monetary policy has created the added risks.

Q: If you’d asked a group of investment bankers about the major consequence of over-stimulating, they might have said inflation. But there is little evidence of increasing inflation. Is monetarism dead? Where is the economic theory?

IM: Well, monetarism is dead. No doubt about it. You saw what has happened in the US where the money base has quadrupled over the last four to five years, but there’s been virtually no inflation at all. In fact, there’s been more fear of deflation. The relationship between monetary aggregates and inflation has completely broken down. It broke down in the late 1980’s. It was replaced by inflation-targeting, that the best thing a central bank could do was achieve low inflation. It improves your chances of having a long, sustainable expansion.

Let’s get onto forward guidance. Most of the time, during my period, transparency of monetary policy consisted of when you changed the cash rate (which they call the Fed funds rate in America), the central bank would put out a statement explaining why they did it. But you weren’t expected to say what you would do in the future. And I actually think it’s very difficult to do that, because most of the time you don’t know. There’s nothing worse than putting out something that you don’t personally believe in. In the US and UK, having lowered interest rates to zero and done everything they can to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t seem to be working very well, there was a reach out for other things like quantitative easing.

The other thing they did was say we won’t tighten rates until some trigger point is reached. The point they chose was the unemployment rate going down to 6.5% in the US. What happened? The unemployment rate has gone down to 6.5% and they haven’t tightened, so that forward guidance was not very useful. They lost faith in the unemployment rate as a general indicator of the health of the economy. They still have lots of excess capacity.

Q: Let’s turn to China. Can we believe the growth numbers, and what are their chances of avoiding some sort of crash based on credit conditions?

IM: Can we believe the numbers? Well, they’re not as good as ours, but I’ve seen two phases of people criticising China’s numbers. The first phase they used to say China must be growing faster than they claim. If you look at all the sub components – consumption, investments, exports - they are growing faster than GDP. Now we hear the argument the other way. Surely it’s not growing as fast as they claim it is. I think it is. I think they make a genuine effort with the resources they have to estimate GDP growth rate, and if you don’t like that, there are other things to look at such as the amount of steel produced or the rate of export growth which are easier to measure. Usually you’ll get something that’s not too different from GDP. So you can, by and large, accept their figures.

The other question I get is what are we going to do when China collapses. My answer was always that I don’t think it will collapse, and so far that’s been right. We hear a lot about imbalances in the Chinese economy and especially that there’s been excessive credit expansion. There is obviously some proof to that, in that in the financial crisis, those countries like Australia that could expand fiscal policy did so by increasing government expenditure. The Chinese approach is to tap the banks on the shoulder and tell them to lend more. Which they did. They still have a legacy of a lot of loans out there, some of dubious quality.

But for the big four or five state banks, I don’t think they’ll get into trouble. They’ll be able to handle the inevitable bad loans. All banks have bad loans. Plus the central government has the resources. The main issue is shadow banking, which is anything other than banking. These are pools of funds available for lending at much higher interest rates than major banks, and the Chinese government is determined to slow it down. There are a variety of things they can do. You will notice for the first time insolvencies, where small financial institutions are failing. This is very unusual in China, in a communist country, the concept of failure did not exist. This was one of the problems in trying to contain shadow banking – people thought you could earn 12% in you went to one of these shadow banks because there was no concept of failure. The government is selectively letting a very small number of shadow bank securities fail. Not necessarily losing all their capital, but perhaps missing out on the final coupon. Some of the securities were issued though ICBC, a big retail bank. As usual in China, these things can be carefully controlled. In other countries, a couple of failures might be the sign of something very bad, but it’s really part of many policies to get a proper capital market where there are a range of returns for risk. So don’t be alarmed if you read more stories like this.

 

In Part 2 next week, Ian Macfarlane shares his views on emerging markets, Australian banks being ‘too big to fail’, Fed expansion and residential property prices.

RELATED ARTICLES

US rate rises would challenge multi-asset diversified portfolios

A tale of the inflation genie, the Fed and the RBA

It's not all about interest rates: give me a 1980s petshop galah!

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.