Interest Rates in the UK

Interest rates are a tool that central banks use to implement monetary policy. They represent the percentage rate at which interest is paid by a borrower for the privilege of using money that has been lent to them and the interest can be paid at various time intervals. Higher interest rates will have an impact upon inflation and employment and could lead to a reduction in consumer spending and investment. The Bank of England meets every month to set the UK bank rate. There are nine members of the Committee and they are appraised of all the latest data on the economy and business conditions. Their task is to keep inflation below 2% but above 1% in the following 2 years.

In the UK the current rate of interest, also known as the base rate, as set by the Bank of England, is 0.5%. This is an historically low level which has been in place for the past 5 years in order to aid the country's recovery from the recession brought about by the financial crisis. It is anticipated that interest rates will have to rise sooner rather than later, although there is much speculation about the date of the first rate rise which is anticipated to be in the first half of next year. The new normal level for rates is expected to be 2 to 3%, well below the 5% from the late 1990s to the financial crisis. In 1976 interest rates hit 15% and double digit interest rates were not uncommon between 1975 and 1991.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, and Charlie Bean, the outgoing Deputy, have both indicated that rates will peak at around 3% in 3 to 5 years time, below the pre-crisis average of 5%. There have been indications that rates may start to rise in the next 12 months and in the latest minutes of the Bank of England's meeting it seemed that a decision was now more finely balanced than in recent years. It is essential that the Bank of England raises rates slowly so that it does not choke off the recovery that is beginning to come through. Britain's economy is growing faster than any of the other Group of Seven countries at an annual rate of 3% and it is not clear what impact an interest rate rise would have on the economy after the long recession.

Charlie Bean has suggested that any rises are in "baby steps" in order to avoid making mistakes. In other words he thinks the Bank should be cautious - this could entail raising rates soon - but at a smaller rate than has been implemented in the past, for instance at a rate of increase of 0.1% instead of the previous normal rate of 0.25%.

It is generally accepted that low interest rates are inflationary and the Bank will be watching for early signs that this is happening and try to move interest rates up early to forestall it. Generally they would raise interest rates if they were concerned that inflation was on the increase in order to reduce demand and slow the rate of economic growth. At the present time there are no signs that inflation is picking up with the latest CPI figure coming in at 1.8% which may be attributable to the output gap.

Interest rate movements have the largest impact for individuals on savings, mortgages and annuities, whilst for businesses it impacts the level of demand, interest on loans and the present value of assets and liabilities.

Over the last 5 years savers have been badly hit by the low level of interest rates. This has been particularly hard for pensioners with savings. Higher interest rates would make it more attractive to save cash in deposit accounts as the level of interest received would be higher than at present, thus reducing the need to take on extra risk to earn a decent reward.

At the same time interest payments on credit cards and loans would increase making them more expensive to use and would act as a disincentive. Those who have existing loans may find them harder to finance due to higher interest payments and this could reduce their spending in other areas.

In Britain there have been concerns about the housing market recovery and the possibility of a bubble forming, particularly in London. The Bank of England will be more concerned about the risks of a large increase in debt than about price growth due to a lack of supply. If interest rates rise mortgage payments linked to the variable rate will also rise and new mortgages will also be issued at a higher rate. This would also have the impact of a brake on spending as disposable income would be reduced. For instance a 0.5% rise in interest rates would increase the payments on a £100,000 mortgage by £60 a month.

Annuity rates have been very low during the financial crisis as they are linked to interest rates via the 15 year gilt or government bond yield. When interest rates rise annuity rates should also improve. Those retiring in the coming years should be able to secure a higher income. A half a percentage rise in interest rates could see yields on the 15 year gilts rise by 50 basis points which could result in a 5% rise in annuity rates whilst if interest rates reach 1.75% annuity rates could be 12.5% higher.

The value of sterling would increase if interest rates rose. International investors would be more likely to use British banks for their savings if the interest rates in the UK are higher than in other countries.

A strong pound also makes British exports less competitive which could have the effect of reducing exports and increasing imports thus reducing the overall demand in the economy.

Interest rate rises also have the general effect of reducing confidence both for the consumer and business which has the effect of discouraging risk taking and investment.

Predicting when rates are likely to increase is difficult. One indicator that may help to predict when interest rates are likely to rise are the overnight swap rates which often influence the market rates of fixed mortgages and fixed rate savings bonds.

Darren Winters

Modi Wins - will India Prosper?

It’s no surprise that when the world’s largest democracy, India with a population of 1.2 billion people and economy valued at 4.962 trillion dollars, based on 2013 GDP figures, goes to the polls the world’s media sits up and pays close attention.   

Whilst the outcome of the recent national elections in Indian was fairly predictable, based on local polls, which pointed to a land slide victory for the former tea merchant, Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), nevertheless, the election would be a momentous occasion for the emerging economy, India. No other political party other than the Congress party had ruled the country for 18 of the 67 years, since its independence from Britain. The elections were a "genuinely revolutionary moment … a democratic asteroid," according to author and academic Sunil Khilnani, as reported in the Times of India.

Indeed, Modi's politically right leaning BJP party now controls around 340 of the 543 elected seats in parliament at the cost of the centre-left who had their representation squashed to just 40 seats, a historic low.  With voter turnout at around 66.38 percent, up 3 percent in the 1984-85 elections, according to Hindustan Times, it becomes apparent that Modi BJP leading party has conceded power with a healthy legitimacy of its people. Moreover, the Indians have given their thumbs up to a pro business party and they appear to have shunned the political left.

Meanwhile, the herd instinct of the financial market has driven the Indian stock market to record highs and the local currency, the rupee has rallied since Modi’s election win.

Therefore, with all this in mind, a politically friendly business climate and buoyant Indian financial markets, a question worth pondering over is whether all this might be a catalyst for greater capital inflows to India. 

Modi undoubtedly is keen on attracting inward investment to India, bearing in mind that capital investment accounts for nearly 35 percent to India's economy, which incidentally barely grew in the previous fiscal year that ended in March due to funding issues, thereby putting a spanner in the works of many infrastructure projects.

There are some pressing issues for Modi to deal with as soon as he puts his feet under the premier’s desk. For example, on the economic front India’s credit rating has been downgraded to a "BBB-minus", by the credit rating agency Standard & Poor, which has a negative outlook on its sovereign debt.  The market is now anxiously waiting to see if Modi can prevent a further downgrade by the credit rating agency to junk status. The pivotal point will be in July when the new government will need to convince investors that it is serious about getting its budget deficit under control

But getting the deficit down to its target of 4.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is by no means an easy feat.  The previous administration, riddled with corruption scandals, has not left the state coffers in a healthy state. Moreover, the Indian economy is neither looking virile and relatively reliant on public funding. Public spending in the Indian economy accounts for 11 percent of GDP. So a cut in government spending could be a further dampener on the Indian economy as a sizable number of the electorates’ livelihoods are dependent, either directly or indirectly, on it.  Austerity is not going to be an easy sell for the Modi, despite the leader’s landslide victory.

Also improving the state’s coffers from increased tax revenues is unlikely to materialize in a relatively fragile economy.

Moreover, India’s Reserve Bank is keen on tackling the inflation rate, which currently stands at 8.6 percent. Their inflation target is 7 per cent by January 2016.  The implication here could be further interest rate hikes; already it has jacked up interest rates three times since last September.  But higher interest rates could be a double blow for India’s businesses by increasing the cost of financing and servicing existing debt, but also it would appreciate

 the rupee and make exports more expensive.

Then there are all these bad loans racked up, 100 billion USD to be precise, which are mainly associated with public infrastructure projects.  This currently represents 10 percent of all loans and it is estimated to reach 14 percent of loans by March 2015, according to Fitch Ratings.

The trade deficit is another issue the new government may need to get to grips with.  Indian has set a target of a 2 percent trade deficient of its GDP. Gold imports have contributed to a greater than desired trade deficit. The previous administration responded by slapping tariffs, duties onto gold, which then fuelled a black market in the precious metal.  Modi has promised to abolish these duties on gold. While this may be good news for gold buyers, this could also exert downward pressure on the value of the rupee, which would not be favorable to investors.  

Another potential black swan for investors could be the ongoing religious feud between the Hindu majority and the Muslim minority.  Modi, a Hindu, may not be perceived by the alienated and in some cases discriminated Muslim population, representing 14 percent to be sympathetic towards Muslim issues.  Many Indian Muslim distrust Modi, who has been allegedly linked with a police assassination squad, which targeted Muslims. If the Muslim minority population continues to feel alienated, they could be radicalized resulting in more attacks against western interests.

There are some clear distinctions between China and India’s economy. For one, China has a large trade surplus, whilst the later has a deficit. China’s GDP grow rate, albeit decelerating in growth, at 7.7 GDP in 2013. India’s GDP growth rate has been estimated at 4.7 percent. China’s population is ageing, India’s is relative young and maybe looking into the future confident and energized by their new leader, while China’s people continue to be repressed by the regime, cohurst into accepting inhumane working conditions. The protests continue in China-how long can the authorities repress a nation of 1.3 billion people. 

Darren Winters

The UK Housing Market - where is it going?

Owning your home is something of a British obsession. It is not just somewhere to live (though that's important), it's also the biggest investment most people make in their lifetimes. And if you already own one you're fortunate - the prices seem to be going nowhere but up.

Last month, figures from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors suggest that on average we can expect a 6% rise in prices for the next five years. In the last year alone we've seen a 17% rise in London prices, arguably driven by an influx of wealthy foreigners who see London as a good investment, and the ability of London as a centre of economic growth to attract ever more people. But the price rise in London tends to distort the overall pattern, and if we remove London from the equation we get a national price rise in the last year of 5.8%.

The Office for National Statistics has produced a chart showing price changes expressed as percentages. You can see below that we had a substantial drop into negative figures with the financial crash in 2008, and by contrast now we're seeing a steep upward movement.

Figure 1: Annual house price rates of change, UK all dwellings from January 2004 to February 2014

(12 month percentage change)

The ONS puts the average UK house price at £250,000, while Nationwide have it lower at around £175,000. The Land Registry has it lower again at £165,000. This variability is down to the way the organisations calculate the figures, Nationwide using its own mortgage lending data, while the ONS uses data from a number of lenders, and makes certain adjustments. The Land Registry uses property ownership registration data. It all leads to an £85,000 difference between lowest and highest figures, which tends to confuse the issue.

London of course leads the pack, with the average house price now around £458,000. And if things move as predicted that will be £567,000 by 2020. 

So what's driving this resurgence? Low interest rates are a factor, as is the Help to Buy Mortgage guarantee scheme.  Then there's the funding for lending scheme, which was launched by the government in conjunction with the Bank of England in 2012. Its purpose was to provide cheap money to banks and building societies, thereby encouraging them to increase mortgage lending. This seems to have worked too well, as it was withdrawn in November 2013, supposedly to cool the market down. Another significant factor is the lack of new housing being built. This is a problem stretching back many years, and it seems the political will to address it has been woefully lacking. So we've had a long period where demand exceeds supply.

This seemingly relentless increase in prices creates issues of affordability, especially if you're a first time buyer. If we use a simple example to demonstrate the problem: - let's assume you want to buy an averagely priced London house at £468,000. You actually have a deposit of £40,000, and your net income per month is £2,500. At a mortgage term of 25 years and an interest rate of 4.75% you're only looking at a monthly repayment of £2,440! Which is 97% of your monthly income. Walk in the park then. This example may be extreme, but for younger people living in London (many of whom won't have a £40,000 deposit), it effectively excludes them from home ownership.

Intiatives (as mentioned above) have been launched to address the problem. The most significant one from the buyer's point of view is the Help to Buy scheme. This comes in two flavours. The first is an equity loan. This allows a prospective buyer with a 5% deposit to take a government loan for up to 20% of the price of the house. That loan is fee free for five years, then you will be charged an annual fee of 1.75%. With this arrangement in place you can then apply for a mortgage up to 75% of the property's value. Flavour two is the mortgage guarantee option. Again, you need 5% deposit, but this time the government guarantees the mortgage with the lender, so if you default they'll get their money back. Both these options are open to first time buyers and those moving home, on a property with a value up to £600,000.

There's no doubt that this scheme has made it possible for people to get on the housing ladder. But along with the funding for lending scheme it has been criticised in some quarters for stoking up the housing market.

The crazy multiples of income that were on offer before the last recession in 2007/8 (up to 6 times salary in some cases) are no longer the norm, though some lenders still offer them. And although income multiples are still a factor, as a result of the recent Mortgage Market Review lenders are moving towards pure 'affordability' as a criterion. This means that during your mortgage application your finances will come under close scrutiny, a kind of 'stress test' for consumers. This is an effort to curb the tendency of borrowers to overextend themselves when they had the opportunity pre-2007. Interest rates are currently at a historic low, but when they go up, as they inevitably will, your lender wants to be confident about your ability to keep repaying the loan. For many people this kind of scrutiny will make it yet harder to get a mortgage.

So the alternative for those young people priced out of the market is either to rent or stay at home with Mum and Dad. The stay at home generation aren't doing it by choice, they have the issue of first getting a decent paying job, which is proving problematic for many well qualified young people, the jobs just aren't there. And assuming they are working, the average rent for a one bedroom flat in London is £1200 a month. Admittedly that figure is only around half that outside the capital, but it's still a significant slice of a salary. And rents are only predicted to rise going forward.

There's a school of thought that says the UK housing market is a bubble that will one day burst, and compared with other countries Britain's housing stock comes out as 30% overvalued. But apart from the 2008 dip, there seems no sign of the bubble bursting anytime soon. Even if in the near future salaries rise, and more housing stock becomes available, it will still be a challenge to get your foot on that ladder. 

Darren Winters