Matt Nolan

Three open economies walk into a bar …

/34 Comments/in , , , /by

There has been an interesting discussion comparing the recession in three open economies, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  It started with the Canadians, but a couple of New Zealanders then became involved.

The facts are that:

  1. Headline inflation in all three countries is currently close to target (implying that we all made our inflation targets),
  2. New Zealand experienced the largest declines in GDP – Australia the lowest,
  3. The relative price of NZ housing declined, it was stable in Canada, it rose in Australia (all three countries were seen as “over-valued”)
  4. Canada hit the “zero bound” on monetary policy, and it didn’t seem to matter.  New Zealand had room to move, but we stopped and got beaten around the head.

This list of facts suggests one of two things to me:

  1. Demand management in NZ was poorer then in other countries
  2. NZ faced a larger supply shock.

Now, I’m willing to rule out the first one – as we did keep inflation near the target band, and to be honest inflation expectations have held up a little too well …

So this implies that NZ had a larger supply shock.  Here are some reasons I think was the case:

  1. New Zealand’s recession started with a drought, and the required restocking of agricultural breeding stock following the drought.  This was a pain.
  2. New Zealand’s national net debt position is worse than the other two countries (Note:  In NZ when I say national debt I mean private debt + public debt).  With a lot of our debt on a relatively short maturity this was problematic for a few quarters there.
  3. On that note NZ’s financial sector was more strongly hit than the other regions.  It started back in 2005/06 with the “finance company collapse” and got heavy just before our drought induced, striking in late-2007 (here and here).
  4. Terms of trade:  New Zealand’s terms of trade fell to its lowest level since 2004, Australia’s fell to its 2007 levels.  I do not know about Canada – however, the decline in our terms of trade can be seen as a massive supply side shock.
  5. Trade exposure:  Here I am conjecturing, as I am tight for time, but it is possible that NZ could be more trade exposed then the other countries.  If NZ is, it would only be a minor matter anyway I suspect.

Now while these factors explain why NZ declined more sharply than other countries, I don’t think they explain why we are still lagging behind.  Our TOT is recovering fast – it will be back at its peaks mid year.  The drought is over and restocking has been completed.  And our debt position is less of a hazard than it was 12 months ago.  Interesting.

If NZ doesn’t recover to trend (which is very much the consensus forecast out here), it is because New Zealand faced a permanent supply side shock BEFORE the global crisis – we were struggling before things hit the fan overseas, with only a strong lift in the TOT saying us.  When that flooded out at the closing stages of 2008 New Zealand dropped like a stone.

So for Australians and Canadians looking for a point of comparison with New Zealand, just remember that NZ faced a few other issues 😉

Matt Nolan

Fixed and floating mortgage rates, and the OCR

/19 Comments/in , /by

Note:  Apologises for the lack of action here.  If I was any busy I would become a singularity.  Regular posting will eventually restart.  Now for a post …

Bernard Hickey recommended sticking to floating mortgages for the long haul on Rates blog recently.  This is in stark contrast to Tony Alexander’s suggestion that, in a few months, fixing will be the way to go.

Now fundamentally, I think it is important to know What is the difference between a Financial Planner & Wealth Management advisory? These two authors AGREE on the track for the official cash rate going forward.  The difference stems from the expectations for floating and fixed rates.  Personally I agree with Tony.  Why?

Bernards argument, in my opinion, hits a certain flaw right here:

If, for example, the Reserve Bank starts increasing the Official Cash Rate from its 2.5% to around 5% by the end of next year, then variable rates are expected to rise to around 8-8.5%. Given fixed rates are also expected to rise by a similar amount to around 9-9.5% the choice is clear for those simply looking for the cheapest rate.

This isn’t how floating and fixed rates work per see.  The current official cash rate influences interest rates now by providing some opportunity cost in sourcing funds.  The future official cash rate influences fixed interest rates now, by changing the opportunity cost of sourcing funds in the future.  As a result, the fixed rate depends upon expectations of the OCR in the future, while the floating rate only depends on the OCR now.

Given that everyone expects the OCR to lift appreciably in the coming quarters, it makes sense that the current floating rate is below the fixed rates.  However, as the OCR increases floating mortgage rates will lift by a greater amount than fixed rates.

Bernard Hickey is absolutely correct when he says that the world is different, and the make up and structure of interest rates will be different than we have experienced in the past.  However, as we move through the upward swing of the economic cycle I would expect fixed rates to become “relatively cheaper” than floating rates in a static sense.

Matt Nolan

Seperation of monetary and financial stability issues

/8 Comments/in , /by

Economist’s View links to a post on the Vox EU site by Hans Gersbach.  At the start of the post Mark Thoma states:

I have argued many times that the Fed should have two roles. It should conduct monetary policy, and it should be the primary regulator of the financial system. However, not everyone agrees. When I was at the What’s Wrong with Modern Macro Conference in Munich recently, I met Hans Gersbach — we were on a panel together — and he passes along his argument that monetary policy and banking regulation should be conducted by separate bodies

So the disagreement here is not about the two instruments for central banks – in fact in the monetary policy community there is a strong degree of agreement regarding these two roles.  The disagreement stems from who should be in charge of the instruments – should we have one authority controlling both, or separate authorities.

This is a fascinating issue, and I have previously said I am on the side of SEPARATING.

My reasoning is that separating “monetary” and “financial stability” issues is essential in order to create transperancy in the public regarding policy movements.  If we can make sure that changes in the Bank’s cash rate are related to “monetary” policy and changes in prudential regulation/settings are related to “financial stability”.  By doing this, the actions/intentions of the individual institutions are more obvious and are more likely to anchor expectations – which is the point.

Of course monetary and financial stability policies, and these instruments (interest rates and prudential policy) are heavily related.  But of course, we know that monetary policy and fiscal policy is as well.  The fact is that in order to signal policy and control expectations we NEED individual instruments to be targeted at individual variables – and having separate institutions helps to clarify this fact.

Matt Nolan

Exaggerating the benefits of adult community education

/16 Comments/in /by

This is a “sister post” to a discussion on the adult community education market over at the Education Directions blog.  Dave Guerin has substantially more knowledgeable about the industry then I do, and his comments are well worth reading.  I offered to do a small post discussing the “benefits of ACE” which have been bandied about.

Eric Crampton also takes the report to task here.

Read more

Matt Nolan

A $150,000 pay increase?

/6 Comments/in , , /by

David Farrar states that this is how Labour has framed the idea of tax cuts – a $150,000 pay increase for Jack Paul Reynolds, and only a few dollars for the rest of us. David states that we must look at the macroeconomic impact, and that we can’t focus on who gets what, specifically he says:

If the debate becomes one of simply who gets how much, they will have problems

However, I think the debate about who gets what is important.  However, I do not think that it actually falls in Labour’s favour.

Jack Paul has specific skills, he is hard to replace, and is seen to add a lot of value.  The “elasticity of demand” for his service is very very high low.  Furthermore, he has a lot of high paying outside options – he has a good reputation as a CEO.  This means that his “elasticity of supply” is very high (note that I am using quite a discrete margin in this case).

What does this mean?  Well, when he labour income is taxed, the FIRM will pick up the tab – as a result his gross wage is representative of this.  Now this also indicates that, when taxes are lower, the tax payment by the firm will be lower.  As a result, over time his gross wage will adjust DOWN to represent this lower tax rate.

As a result, the direct impact on Jack’s Paul’s pay packet is likely to be very low proportional to both income and what other people receive.  It is Telecom that faces most of the “incidence of tax” in this case – not him.

As a result, a tax cut isn’t a $150,000 pay increase for Jack Paul.  Nowhere near in fact.  National should be using basic economics to debunk these sorts of myths, so that Labour can’t try to pitch it as a class war.

Matt Nolan

Hmmm, suspicious … (New Zealand as a financial hub)

/10 Comments/in /by

I have nothing against the idea of a “financial hub” per see.  We can make an argument for “infant industries” or “positive spillovers” to justify government involvement.  However, the burden of proof is on those making the claims.

That is why the Herald story on this makes me suspicious.

Making New Zealand an international finance centre with “middle and back-office functions” in the funds management industry was one of the recommendations of the Capital Markets Taskforce report last month.

It found the “hub” notion viable but kept the detail of its advice on how to implement the plan out of the report, giving it directly to Mr Key instead.

Usually, people avoid putting things into reports and give them straight to ministers when their analysis is suspect …

Furthermore, look at these claims:

Mr Key says early advice is that between 3000 and 5000 jobs could be created if the plan comes off.

…

The benefit would be the creation of back-room jobs and taxing the fund administrators. The funds themselves would not be taxed.

On the face of it this is fine.  We shouldn’t tax the funds as we are just an intermediatary – we should tax the value added bit.  Cool.  Furthermore, there are jobs, implying that value is being added which creates labour income, cool.

However, HOW do they plan to make us a hub.  This is the important question.  Do these jobs come from subsidising an industry and thereby moving workers from one sector to another.  If so there are opportunity costs – and we better well have some damn good analysis about why market prices aren’t providing the right signal.

Now, it is trivial to state that a government action COULD have a positive impact – give me a possible policy and I can make up a model that would make it sound like a good thing to do.  In truth, we need details so we can ask if we think it WILL have a positive impact – a situation which is only a small subset of all the “could” situations.

And of course, to do that we would actually have to see some analysis – which we have been told was not put in the report.

Hmmmmmm