Mainstream Incredulous at BOE Warning of Brexit No Deal Rate Hikes…


For the bulk of 2018 I have written extensively about how a no deal Brexit scenario benefits the Bank of England in continuing to tighten monetary policy.

As covered in my last blog post (Are Both Sides of the Brexit Divide Being Played for Fools?), BOE governor Mark Carney has indicated that in the event of reverting to World Trade Organisation terms the most likely outcome would be for the bank to raise – not cut – interest rates.

As far back as three months ago, Carney used a press conference following August’s Inflation Report to make it clear to the media and public alike that for rates to be slashed in response to no deal, the ramifications would have to be dis-inflationary. Given that one of these ramifications would be a precipitous fall in the value of sterling, which would accentuate inflation, the suggestion by anyone that dis-inflation would be a problem is highly illogical.

This past Thursday the BOE presented their November Inflation Report, and whilst they left interest rates unchanged at 0.75%, Carney used the opportunity to further signal that a no deal exit from the EU will result in rates rising:

There are scenarios where policy would need to be tightened in the event of a no-deal, no transition so-called disorderly Brexit but I would stress that it is not the view of the committee that that is the most likely scenario.

Rather predictably, mainstream journalists have called Carney’s bluff. One of those is Ed Conway, Economics Editor for Sky News:

It seems frankly implausible that the UK could face a recession and that the Bank would decide to exacerbate the financial pain by lifting borrowing costs. It just doesn’t happen.

Conway goes on to say that prior to the 2016 referendum, the BOE warned that rates may have to rise if the country voted to leave the EU. By his own admission, Conway perceived this as ‘deeply implausible‘, a position he attempts to reinforce by stating that ‘at the first practicable moment after the referendum the bank cut interest rates.’

This is disingenuous at best by Conway. A month prior to the referendum, Carney said this on delivering the May 2016 Inflation Report:

A vote to leave the European Union could have material economic effects on the exchange rate, on demand, and on the economy’s supply potential, effects that could affect the appropriate setting of monetary policy. A further fall in sterling would boost inflation over the policy horizon.

This combination of influences on demand, supply and the exchange rate could lead to a materially lower path for growth and a notably higher path for inflation.

Everything that Carney warned about – call it preemptive programming or otherwise – came to pass. What Conway failed to inform his readers on is how when the BOE cut rates in August 2016, they did so with inflation running at just 0.5% – significantly below the bank’s 2% target for inflation.

In other words, the effects of a leave vote that Carney warned about took time to feed through the financial system. Once inflation passed 2% and worked it’s way notably higher, the tone of the BOE changed from ‘dovish‘ to ‘hawkish‘. During the same period the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada were also in the midst of tightening policy (and continue to be to this day).

Seventeen months after the leave vote, the Bank of England raised interest rates. The warning that they might in response to the referendum was founded.

Once again, the incredulity expressed by Conway two years ago is repeating itself. But he is not alone. Larry Elliott of the Guardian considers the warning of rates rising off the back of a ‘disorderly‘ Brexit as an attempt by the bank to ‘focus minds‘ on the government securing a deal with the EU and the implementation of a transition period. Elliott dubs this ‘Project Fear MK II‘, which on this occasion ‘might just work.’

As Conway and Elliott doubted the validity of Carney’s words, Bloomberg ran an article discussing the scepticism amongst economists that the BOE would follow through with their warnings. Samuel Tombs of Pantheon Macroeconomics was quoted as saying that,

It is possible that they could raise rates but I just think that would be contrary to their instincts at that time. Their initial reaction will be to try and cushion the blow.

What Conway, Elliott and Tombs have not factored into their analysis is that the ‘normalisation‘ of monetary policy is a global initiative, the roots of which can be found at the Bank for International Settlements. This is something I discussed in depth last year (‘Normalisation’ of Monetary Policy: The Candour Behind the Curtain). The pace of ‘normalisation‘ may differ between banks (the Fed have raised rates six times over the past eighteen months whilst the Bank of England have moved twice), but the intention is the same. Central banks are retreating from a decade of monetary accommodation at a time when global political ‘populism‘ is on the rise. A fact that I do not consider a coincidence.

Bereft from mainstream coverage also has been that following the ‘Great Financial Crisis’ in 2008, the BOE tolerated above target inflation over a four year period. During this time inflation reached as high as 5%. The policy response? Rates remained at record lows as the bank continued with quantitative easing. To have begun raising rates then would have placed all the emphasis on the BOE’s actions and left them culpable for an ensuing economic downturn. Geopolitically, there was nothing for the bank to fall back on.

The situation now is the polar opposite. Whichever side of the Brexit divide you constrain yourself to, it cannot be denied that only since the advent of Brexit has the policy stance of the BOE shifted. Listen to Mark Carney speeches today and time and again he refers to the BOE’s remit for 2% inflation and how the decisions they take must be in regard to this target. Quite clearly, the bank’s inflation target matters again. The decisions made by the BOE’s Monetary Policy Committee are being implemented in response to Brexit, which in turn provides the bank with the justification to be able to ‘normalise‘.

The sad fact is that mainstream economists are notoriously complacent. Months before the Bank of England raised rates for the first time in a decade last year, the consensus was that the bank would not move on rates until at least 2019. I predicted in the summer of 2017 that the BOE would raise rates before the year was out, mostly because of the prevailing trends that were evidently growing throughout the central banking community.

Crucially, communications from the Bank of England are being supported by actions. This is also the case with the Federal Reserve. In my view, Mark Carney is forewarning markets and the public of what will follow if the UK vacates the EU with no agreement. The incredulity of Ed Conway, Larry Elliott and others serves only to deflect attention away from the reality of what potentially is about to happen.


  1. “Quite clearly, the bank’s inflation target matters again.”

    You got it Steven.

    Mark Caranage will bang this drum because it “matters” again and UK rates will inevitably be raised. As you say, a sterling devaluation will mean import prices are higher and the UK imports a lot of its goods the inflation level will increase.

    The case of Mervyn King’s Bank of England tenure demonstrates clearly how the 2% target counts for nothing when they don’t want it to.

    I’m also a big believer that interest rate policy is co-ordinated at the level of the BIS. Domestic inflation data be damned.

    I used to laugh at Mervyn King’s performances as he fielded questions when the quarterly inflation report was issued. I could only marvel at his ability to speak in perfectly constructed paragraphs, waffling about headwinds and tailwinds and convincing those listening that somehow, although he had yet again missed the inflation target, trust us, inflation would definitely be coming down “soon”. Hence it was fine to keep rates at 0.5% and continue with QE.

    Bear in mind his job was to deliver 2% inflation, not predict it.

    Yet in 48 consecutive months during his decade long tenure King presided over an economy where inflation was not just over 2% but nudging 5%. Every set of minutes said virtually the same thing: “don’t worry, inflation is definitely coming down soon”. Hilarious – and he’d have the press pack spellbound at these events with his tedious waffle.

    In 2011 with inflation still at 4% and GDP below what it was in 2007 level King was given a knighthood.

    Mervyn King left his post on July 19th 2013 having missed the inflation target in 157 months out of 194. He was made a life peer the same day for “contributions to public service” – Mervyn Allister King – Baron King of Lothbury.

    In King’s 194th and final meeting in June 2013, with the inflation target STILL not met at 2.9% King voted to increase QE – AGAIN – from £375 billion to £400 billion. Because as any economist will tell you, printing £25 billion really helps you hit a 2.0% inflation target when inflation is running at 2.9%. Not.

    (excuse the length of this comment!)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ve used a time period overlapping Mervyn King’s tenure which might make his record look worse than it is. In the interests of fairness. ….

    Mervyn King’s personal record over his 10 years (120 months)

    At or under 2.0% inflation – 35 occasions out of 120
    Over 2.0% inflation – 85 occasions out of 120

    Note that King’s first 23 months were all under 2.0% as he inherited a low inflation economy.

    In only 12 of his remaining 97 months did he hit meet the target, while overseeing QE.

    The point is that even while constantly missing the inflation target he was advocating an extremely inflationary policy – namely more quantitative easing, let alone considering raising rates.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.