Could the slow response of deposit rates to changes in monetary policy strengthen its impact on the economy? At first look, the answer would probably be ‘no’. Imperfect pass-through of policy to deposit rates means that the rates on a portion of assets in the economy respond by less than they could. But what if this meant that the rates on other assets responded by more? In a recent paper, I develop a model that is consistent with a number of features of banks’ assets and liabilities and find that monetary policy has a largereffect on economic activity and inflation if the pass-through of policy to deposit rates is partial.
Alongside our multi-year ‘Bank of England Agenda for Research’, the Bank also publishes a set of ‘Priority Topics’, which change each calendar year. The new 2022 Priority Topics are now available on the Bank’s website (see ‘2022 Priority Topics’ under each theme).
It is certainly not a mystery that the Fed’s monetary policy is of great importance for financial markets and the global economy. However, in a recently published Staff Working Paper, we show that the Fed’s monetary policy measures are not the only valuable piece of information contained in the Fed’s announcements. Changes in the Fed’s economic assessment drive investors’ risk behaviour and international capital allocation decisions. Through this channel, changes in Fed views can affect financial conditions and economic activity in the rest of the world, independent of policy actions.
Stephen Millard, Margarita Rubio and Alexandra Varadi
The 2008 global financial crisis showed the need for effective macroprudential policy. But what tools should macroprudential policy makers use and how effective are they? We examined these questions in in a recent staff working paper. We introduced different macroprudential tools into a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model of the UK economy and compared their impact on the economy and household welfare, as well as their interaction with each other and with monetary policy. We found that capital requirements reduce the effects of financial shocks. Instead, a limit on how much of borrowers’ income is spent on mortgage interest payments reduces the volatility of lending, output and inflation resulting from housing market shocks.
Julia Giese, Michael Joyce, Jack Meaning and Jack Worlidge
Every financial market transaction has two parties, each with their own preferences. One channel through which quantitative easing works rests on these differences: preferred habitat investors value certain assets above others for non-pecuniary reasons, beyond risk and return. Central bank asset purchases of the preferred asset create scarcity, which may lead to compensating price adjustment, with spillovers to other assets and the macroeconomy. There is, however, little hard evidence on these investors. In a staff working paper, we use a new granular data set on gilt market holdings and transactions to identify groups of investors with preferred portfolio duration habitats. We present a case study suggesting that the Bank’s purchases appear to have come disproportionately from one group of these investors with a relatively strong preference for specific gilt maturities.
Following a period of relative calm, many derivative users received large margin calls as financial market volatility spiked amidst the onset of the Covid-19 (Covid) global pandemic in March 2020. This reinvigorated the debate about dampening such ‘procyclicality’ of margin requirements. In a recent paper, we suggest a cost-benefit approach to mitigating margin procyclicality, whereby alternative mitigation strategies would be assessed not only in terms of the reduction in procyclicality they would deliver (the benefit), but also any increase in average margin requirements over the financial cycle (the cost). Strategies with the best trade-offs could then be put into practice. Our procyclicality metrics could also be used to report margin variability to derivative users, assisting them with their liquidity risk management.
Rebecca Freeman, Mario Larch, Angelos Theodorakopoulos and Yoto V Yotov
Most economists rely upon the structural gravity model as a best tool to analyse the impact of trade policies on bilateral trade flows. However, while the gravity model is well suited to examine the impact of bilateral trade costs – such as tariffs imposed by exporter-importer pairs – it is poorly equipped to estimate the impact of country-specific policies because standard controls subsume their effects. This is problematic, as in practice many policy-relevant trade costs are country-specific. This post proposes a solution to this problem and discusses new methods to identify the full impact of country-specific characteristics within the structural gravity framework. A useful byproduct of our methods is that they deliver disaggregate trade elasticity estimates without the need for price/tariff data.
Before Bank Underground goes off on its Christmas holidays, it’s time for the Annual Bank Underground Christmas Quiz! We hope you enjoy testing your knowledge on our festive themed questions on economics, finance and all things central banking…
The price of Bitcoin is currently around $57,000 (see Chart 1). But what is the price of Bitcoin based on? It’s just a bunch of code that exists only in cyberspace. It’s not backed by the state. There’s no recourse to a central authority. There’s no underlying asset, no stream of income. There’s just the thing itself. But does that mean it has no inherent worth? The code on which Bitcoin is based does give it scarcity value. Only 21 million Bitcoin will ever be created. And that might be worth something. That scarcity is why some people refer to Bitcoin as ‘digital gold’. But the very scarcity on which Bitcoin is based might also be its undoing. Its scarcity may even, ultimately, render Bitcoin worthless.