The aim of this policy is to cap gilt yields by signalling that the Bank will act as the buyer of last resort to prevent forced sales by pension funds from driving yields even higher.
If this signal is credible, the Bank will not actually have to buy anywhere near £65 billion.,,
The fact that it bought just £22 million today can also be seen as a sign that it is more comfortable with where yields are now. (Longer dated yields have fallen to around 4%.)
Note also that offers to sell today amounted to less than £2bn - a sign that the panic is easing.
Ps. the idea that this has 'cost the taxpayer £65 billion' (or whatever) is nonsense.
The Bank of England is buying bonds using new money. These bonds have value and pay interest, so the Bank could even make a profit.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#KwasiKwarteng’s reluctance to confirm that benefits will be uprated in line with #inflation has fed speculation that the government is considering a real-terms cut.
I’m going to explore this further, but at first sight it looks like a very bad idea...
To recap, benefits are usually uprated in April in line with the CPI measure of inflation recorded in the previous September. This meant that benefits rose by just 3.1% in April this year (the inflation rate in September 2021), well below actual inflation of 9.0% in April itself.
The row about this at the time was partly defused by additional one-off payments to low-income households.
But Ministers also argued that benefit claimants could expect to catch up next year when payments were uprated in line with the September CPI (probably about 10%).
The Bank will carry out *temporary* purchases of long-dated UK government bonds from 28 Sep to 14 Oct to stabilise the market.
The purchases ‘will be carried out on whatever scale is necessary’, but are *strictly time-limited*…
At the same time, the #MPC is pausing the start of active #QT (i.e. selling bonds bought under #QE) until 31 Oct.
This might be reviewed depending on economic and market conditions, but the annual target of £80bn of sales is unchanged, so this is a delay rather than a U-turn...
In my view, this is a sensible and proportionate response.
Of course, it would be better if this hadn’t been necessary, but the aim was to lower gilt yields and the intervention has worked: 30-year yields have fallen by one full percentage point (!) today...
Reflections on the morning after - and especially the markets… 🧵
It may well take some time for the dust to settle on #KwasiKwarteng’s first #Budget (yes, 'Budget’: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s fair to call it a duck)...
The initial reaction from most economic commentators and in the financial markets has been a loud boo! There are some things I would have done differently. But the overall strategy is sound, and sentiment should recover as the economic benefits become clearer...
There are two aspects I particularly liked. One is the emphasis on breaking the ‘doom loop’ of weak economic growth and rising taxes, both with tax cuts and – at least as importantly – structural reforms on the supply-side...
Some thoughts on the proposed #energy bill freeze... 🧵
Based on media reports, the idea is to cap the unit cost of energy by subsidising suppliers so that they do not have to pass on higher wholesale prices in full, either to households or to businesses… (1/10)
On the plus side, this would lift the huge cloud of uncertainty which is now hanging over the whole economy. The peak in #inflation would also be much lower.
With this plan in place, the new government can score a big 'win' and quickly move on to other priorities... (2/10)
But this is another huge intervention which will distort markets even further, mainly help higher users of energy, and could be very expensive.
Consumers will still have some incentive to reduce bills by using less energy, but much less than if prices were free to adjust. (3/10)
A few features of the #energy market that Gordon Brown (and his many fans here) don't seem to understand... 🙄
1. Energy suppliers are not the ones making big profits. None of his ideas - including #nationalisation - would reduce the prices they have to pay in global markets.
2. The Ofgem price cap is already based on an assessment of the ‘actual costs’ of supplying energy, including a small profit margin. As such, the cap already forces suppliers to ‘keep prices down’...
3. North Sea oil and gas profits are already taxed at a headline rate of 65%. Raising this even further - in an ad hoc way, and retrospectively - would send a terrible signal to all businesses thinking of investing in the UK.
Unions must give warning, so there is some time to make alternative plans.
The series of 1-day #strikes (Tue 21, Thur 23, Sat 25) might be less disruptive than a single, prolonged stoppage, because some customers may be able to reschedule their use during the breaks... (2/5)
Some of the costs to the economy could also be reduced by ‘home working’, and by the diversion of leisure spending to other activities.
Nonetheless, there will be significant disruption to passenger traffic, and possibly to freight, including supplies of essential goods... (3/5)