Question 1: The value of the pound fell sharply this week. Do you agree that the public debate on Brexit can be expected to (continue to) lead to a substantially higher level of exchange rate volatility in the upcoming months?
Exchange rate volatility is likely to increase further in the next four months as the membership vote approaches. Exit will probably be associated with lower capital inflows and a lower real (and nominal) exchange rate. As the probability of exit changes, so will the exchange rate. Exit may also result in greater exchange rate volatility being sustained for some time as policy reactions will be harder to judge. We are in for a bumpy few months, and perhaps a rocky few years, with higher short term exchange rate volatility. Exchange rate volatility damages foreign direct investment inflows, and this will cause short to medium term damage to the economy.
Question 2: Do you agree that the falls in share prices, low oil prices and the slowdown in some emerging market economies will have a significant negative impact on the UK’s economic recovery?
The positive impact of low oil prices on the UK economy in 2015-16 should more than offset the negative impacts of lower equity markets and the slowdown in emerging markets. Lower oil prices have a clear and immediate positive impact on demand in the UK. Equity markets declines have a limited short term impact on demand as consumers take time to react to them, and firms do little investment through stock market issues. The weakening of sterling in recent weeks should more than offset any negative impact from emerging markets on trade, and these would be limited in any case. The UK is not a significant exporter to China and other emerging markets, unlike Germany and the US. Risks always exist, and threats to the solvency of UK based banks involved in Emerging Markets and China would pose a problem. However, those banks seem well capitalised, and this problem should not be part of a central scenario. The UK government, in any case, has significant space (and creditability) for a temporary fiscal response to any noticeable reduction in demand driven by banking sector problems.
Prospects for global growth have not deteriorated noticeably in the last six months. The slowdown in growth in China is likely to have a limited impact on demand in OECD countries. Low oil prices stimulate spending on other goods and boost demand in oil consuming countries. The prospect for sustained low oil prices appears to have led to a reduction in equity holdings by some oil related sovereign wealth funds. The sovereign wealth fund selloff appears to have been a factor behind stock market turbulence. Equity market declines only have a significant impact on demand when they spill over in to the solvency of financial institutions. This does not appear to be a significant problem in OECD countries. The Chinese banking system may face problems after the bursting of the stock market bubble, but this is unlikely to cause major problems for OECD economies. The OECD economies are more insulated from Chinese financial markets than they are from Chinese trade. Even if growth slows there remains significant space for a temporary fiscal expansion in in most OECD countries.
Do you agree that if the Chinese slowdown turns out to be persistent, it will have a significant impact on UK growth (say, in the order of a few tenths of a percentage point) and/or it will justify a material change in monetary policy (for example, in terms of the timing and speed of a return to ‘normal’ interest rates) and fiscal policy (for example, in terms of the timing and speed of fiscal contraction).
Answer:
Agree
Confidence level:
Confident
Comment:
A persistent slowdown reduces trend growth, and the impacts will be very small. Two percent off trend Chinese growth would reduce UK trend growth by at most 0.1 per cent. However, the risks the Bank refer to are cyclical, not structural. If the cycle downturn is strong this will slow UK growth. The magnitude might be twice as high for the demand cycle as for the supply trend effect
The Eurosystem’s risk sharing agreement reduces the risk of a Grecian slide in to unsustainability and hence makes monetary union more robust. The European Monetary Union is made up of multiple sovereigns and hence it must have different rules from the US monetary union which has one sovereign. If the US Federal Reserve system buys US government bonds and the US government defaults on those bonds it is liable for the losses made by the FRB. There is no real gain to the US government. Under current arrangements if a European government defaults then the losses within the Eurosystem will be the liability of the issuing government, exactly as in the US. If the risk sharing arrangement within the Eurosystem were different then the taxpayers behind the non-domestic holders of the defaulted bonds would have to pay a ‘tax’. Hence there is a risk that excess debt would be issued by countries trying to game the system.
The CFM surveys informs the public about the views held by prominent economists based in Europe on important macroeconomic and public policy questions. Some surveys focus specifically on the UK economy (as the CFM is a UK research centre), but surveys can in principle focus on any macroeconomic question for any region. The surveys shed light on the extent to which there is agreement or disagreement among these experts. An important motivation for the survey is to give a more comprehensive overview of the beliefs held by economists and in particular to include the views of those economists whose opinions are not frequently heard in public debates.
Questions mainly focus on macroeconomic and public policy topics. Although there are some questions that focus specifically on the UK economy, the setup of the survey is much broader and considers questions related to other countries/regions and also considers questions not tied to a specific economy.
The surveys are done in collaboration with the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
Brexit and financial market volatility
======================================================================
Question 1: The value of the pound fell sharply this week. Do you agree that the public debate on Brexit can be expected to (continue to) lead to a substantially higher level of exchange rate volatility in the upcoming months?
======================================================================
Market Turbulence and Growth Prospects
======================================================================
Question 2: Do you agree that the falls in share prices, low oil prices and the slowdown in some emerging market economies will have a significant negative impact on the UK’s economic recovery?
======================================================================
======================================================================
Question 1: Do you agree that economic growth prospects for the global economy have seriously deteriorated?
======================================================================
China’s growth slowdown: likely persistence and effects
======================================================================
Question 2:
Do you agree that if the Chinese slowdown turns out to be persistent, it will have a significant impact on UK growth (say, in the order of a few tenths of a percentage point) and/or it will justify a material change in monetary policy (for example, in terms of the timing and speed of a return to ‘normal’ interest rates) and fiscal policy (for example, in terms of the timing and speed of fiscal contraction).
ECB's quantitative easing
======================================================================
Question 2:
Do you agree that the structure of the ECB's QE programme makes the Eurozone more fragile and increases the risk of one country leaving the euro?
======================================================================
Pages