Economic Stimulus

<html><body>Despite spending more than $320 billion in response to COVID-19, experts say even more money will be needed from the government, according to the latest Finder survey. Results from the <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/rba-cash-rate" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">Finder RBA Cash Rate Survey™</a> this week, show that experts and economists are unconvinced that the federal government’s stimulus packages will be sufficient to see the country through to the end of the year. Three-quarters (73%, 16) of respondents said they expect another stimulus package will be needed.  A similar number (75%, 15) who weighed in on the Australian shares market, expect it to fall further this year. Graham Cooke, insights manager at Finder, said as hard as it is to believe, 16.4% of the country’s nearly $2 trillion GDP may still not be enough. “If the aim is to build a bridge to the other side of this crisis, there might still be some materials that need to be purchased. “On top of trying to close the gap, this pandemic has created, the near-40% loss in value of Australia’s share market may not be over just yet.  “With the full effects of coronavirus still to be understood, expect the high volatility we have seen in the shares market of late to continue for months.” Cash rate to stay put, but QE on cards All 23 economists and experts surveyed expect the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to hold the cash rate at 0.25% on Tuesday. “Most economists highlighted that the RBA will treat 0.25% as if it is 0% and have no appetite to cut further.  “This leaves only one effective tool in the RBA’s armoury: quantitative easing,” Cooke said. Quantitative easing (QE) is a process where the central bank creates new cash to decrease, or ease, the cost of borrowing. In Finder’s December 2019 survey, nearly half (46%) of experts predicted it was likely we’d see QE in 2020, well before there was any concern of a global pandemic or a lockdown.  RBA governor Phillip Lowe insisted at the time that the federal bank had “no appetite” for QE. Shane Oliver of AMP Capital said history has shown the folly of going to negative interest rates in other countries. "0.25% has long been identified by the RBA as the lower bound.  “There is little benefit to be gained by going to zero or negative based on the experience of Europe and Japan," Oliver said. Economic Sentiment Tracker  Results from Finder’s Economic Sentiment Tracker, which gauges five key indicators – housing affordability, employment, wage growth, cost of living and household debt – dropped to new lows across most metrics. Cooke said negative sentiment on household debt, wage growth and employment are at 62%, 86% and 100%, respectively. “The sentiment on employment is our first-ever 100% negative response on any economic metric. The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a sledgehammer to the economy, and there is no end in sight,” he said <img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/EkKquNOhes7Tm1rEIH4TFfqG7gKfRn233LzWKxxaIRJXA-ImJe6d6KF7EGwabJCLcn9OQG0GrB6ASTYvrYvnrKH7SF_TFwrgf2jpizHNlXOWHmWnd8FAExFiYndLN7H4_8L6Hjao" width="602" height="387" data-imagetype="External"> Cooke said there was one result that portends good news for homebuyers. “The social gathering restrictions have had a large positive effect on housing affordability. “With estate agents obliged to take viewings by appointment only, and auctions forced online, downward pressure on the housing market is inevitable.  “With both fixed and variable rates at record lows, anyone who has a deposit saved up right now could be in a very powerful position.” The rise in positivity around housing affordability – at its highest level since last June – has pulled the average of positivity across all five metrics higher than last month. “Before the pandemic hit, the worry was that housing prices were continuing to rise even as wages, household debt and cost of living didn’t improve.  “Now, after a global business disruption unrivalled in recent history, the cost of housing might just come back into sight for some Aussies looking to buy,” Cooke said. <img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/QYdBAIcGt_SVYh6Bc-ixcBeeNpaIlPnjBzGbuvmBOPXlXRoqJhZtwY_hbG5PBkmVpSky4kpLBbnJEbAqPxSadD0IAD8NxBxouhp8y2nKXur0bWsqP0MeOfsyrhSGxmARElDpIcEC" width="602" height="399" data-imagetype="External"> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Nn1XHJFGWvNg2nZlmyxjukWBdAKyluQlFllWabQWb53kZ2ib9gOy0ZQEkRVYuil9Rlxr-bc6WCU2Um_hRp722YTcHoEBzec_PXZ61XbJqfH5H9zGd6PM8QWlJBOzRMsCsEkNizs7" width="602" height="404" data-imagetype="External"></body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Experts forecast more economic stimulus and ASX falls: Finder.com.au

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVERS
The Government’s Fiscal Stimulus Package is a bold initiative to bolster the Australian economy’s defences against the damage likely to be wrought by COVID–19.
It is imaginative and works through boosting investment while providing real incentives to protect jobs.
Earlier in the week Westpac forecast that without any Stimulus Package the economy would experience a technical recession of two consecutive quarters of negative growth (in March and June). Although, with growth expected to recover strongly in the second half of 2020 the unemployment rate was unlikely to exceed 6%
Our analysis of the Package suggests that the initiatives are only likely to offset the contraction in the June quarter that we had estimated earlier in the week rather than lift growth into positive territory.
However, the current domestic and global environment has deteriorated more rapidly than we had expected. The downside risks to our central case forecast that we envisaged earlier in the week are now materialising.
For us, despite the Government’s bold efforts the June quarter is still likely to show negative growth and Australia will experience a technical recession.
<div>
Bill Evans is chief economist for Westpac.
Andrew Hanlan is a senior economist at Westpac.
This article was <a href="https://westpaciq.westpac.com.au/Article/42540/14186/" target="_blank">first published on WestpacIQ</a>.
</div>
<div data-fuse="21821171146" data-fuse-code="fuse-slot-21821171146-2" data-fuse-slot="/71161633/PO_propertyobserver/article_incontent_mrec"> </div>
<div>
<div id="cpgAdsenseContainerId"><ins id="aswift_0_expand" data-ad-slot="3195360564"></ins></div>
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Technical recession is still likely despite stimulus package: Westpac

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
With its official cash rate now expected to fall below 1% to a new extraordinarily low close to zero, all sorts of people are saying that the Reserve Bank is in danger of “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-economy-rba-analysis/australias-shrinking-monetary-policy-arsenal-tests-rbas-orthodoxy-idUSKCN1S90CL" target="_blank">running out of ammunition</a>”. Ammunition might be needed if, as during the last financial crisis, it needs to cut rates by several percentage points.
This view assumes that when the cash rate hits zero there is nothing more the Reserve Bank can do.
The view is not only wrong, it is also dangerous, because if taken seriously it would mean that all of the next rounds of stimulus would have to be come from fiscal (spending and tax) policy, even though fiscal policy is probably ineffective long-term, its effects being <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/publication/why-fiscal-multiplier-roughly-zero-0" target="_blank">neutralised by a floating exchange rate</a>.
The experience of the United States shows that Australia’s Reserve Bank could quite easily take measures that would have the same effect as cutting its cash rate a further 2.5 percentage points – that is: 2.5 percentage points below zero.
<hr>
Reserve Bank cash rate since 1990
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277841/original/file-20190604-69059-1j2m4r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277841/original/file-20190604-69059-1j2m4r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2019/mr-19-15" target="_blank">Reserve Bank of Australia</a>
In a report <a href="https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/lessons-from-quantitative-easing-in-the-united-states-a-guide-for-australian-policymakers" target="_blank">released on Tuesday</a> by the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre, I document the successes and failures of the US approach to so-called “quantitative easing” (QE) between 2009 and 2014.
It demonstrates that it is always possible to change the instrument of monetary policy from changes in the official interest rate to changes in other interest rates by buying and holding other financial instruments such as long-term government and corporate bonds.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279752/original/file-20190617-118539-fe387p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Australia can learn form US mistakes. <a class="source" href="https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/lessons-from-quantitative-easing-in-the-united-states-a-guide-for-australian-policymakers" target="_blank">University of Sydney United States Studies Centre</a>
The more aggressively the Reserve Bank buys those bonds from private sector owners, the lower the long-term interest rates that are needed to place bonds and the more former owners whose hands are filled with cash that they have to make use of.
In the US the Federal Reserve also used “<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/timeline-forward-guidance-about-the-federal-funds-rate.htm" target="_blank">forward guidance</a>” about the likely future path of the US Federal funds rate to convince markets the rate would be kept low for an extended period.
It is unclear which mechanism was the most powerful, or whether the Fed even needed to buy bonds in order to make forward guidance work. However in a stressed economic environment, it is worth trying both.
As it comes to be believed that interest rates will stay low for an extended period, the exchange rate will fall, making it easier for Australian corporates to borrow from overseas and to export and compete with imports.
The consensus of the academic literature is that QE cut long-term interest rates by around one percentage point and had economic effects equivalent to cutting the US Federal fund rate by <a href="https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/lessons-from-quantitative-easing-in-the-united-states-a-guide-for-australian-policymakers" target="_blank">a further 2.5 percentage points</a> after it approached zero.
QE need not have limits…
Based on US estimates, Australia’s Reserve Bank would need to purchase assets equal to around 1.5% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product to achieve the equivalent of a 0.25 percentage point reduction in the official cash rate. That’s around A$30 billion.
With over A$780 billion in long-term government (Commonwealth and state) securities on issue, there’s enough to accommodate a very large program of Reserve Bank buying, and the bank could also follow the example of the Fed and expand the scope of purchases to include non-government securities, including residential mortgage-backed securities.
It could also learn from US mistakes. The Fed was slow to cut its official interest rate to near zero and slow to embark on QE in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Its first attempt was limited in size and duration. Its success in using QE to stimulate the economy should be viewed as the lower bound of what’s possible.
…even if it becomes less effective as it grows
It often <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-16/interest-rates-are-going-down-but-how-low-can-they-go/11210682" target="_blank">suggested</a> (although it is <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/confs/2017/borio-hofmann" target="_blank">by no means certain</a>) that monetary policy becomes less effective when interest rates get very low, but this isn’t necessarily an argument to use monetary policy less. It could just as easily be an argument to use it more.
Because there is no in-principle limit to how much QE a central bank can do, it is always possible to do more and succeed in lifting inflation rate and spending.
Fiscal policy may well be even less effective. To the extent that it succeeds, it is likely to push up the Australian dollar, making Australian businesses less competitive.
US economist <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/publication/why-fiscal-multiplier-roughly-zero-0" target="_blank">Scott Sumner</a> believes the extra bang for the buck from government spending or tax cuts (known as the multiplier) is close to zero.
Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe this month appealed for <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2019/sp-gov-2019-06-04" target="_blank">help from the government itself</a>, asking in particular for extra spending on infrastructure and measures to raise productivity growth.
He is correct in identifying the contribution other policies can make to driving economic growth. No one seriously thinks Reserve Bank monetary policy can or should substitute for productivity growth.
But it is a good, perhaps a very good, substitute for government spending that does not contribute to productivity growth.
Three myths about quantitative easing
In the paper I address several myths about QE. One is that it is “printing money”. It no more prints money than does conventional monetary policy. It pushes money into private sector hands by adjusting interest rates, albeit a different set of rates.
Another myth is that it promotes inequality by helping the rich to get richer.
It is a widely believed myth. Former Coalition treasurer <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/murdoch-criticises-central-bank-stimulus-20141017-119n1f" target="_blank">Joe Hockey</a> told the British Institute of Economic Affairs in 2014 that: "Loose monetary policy actually helps the rich to get richer. Why? Because we’ve seen rising asset values. Wealthier people hold the assets."
But it widens inequality no more than conventional monetary policy, and may not widen it at all if it is successful in maintaining sustainable economic growth.
A third myth is that it leads to excessive inflation or socialism.
In the US it has in fact been associated with some of the lowest inflation since the second world war. These days central banks are more likely to err on the side of creating too little inflation than too much.
Some have argued that QE in the US is to blame for the rise of left-wing populists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “<a href="https://realconservativesunite.com/2019/03/07/ben-bernanke-the-father-of-extreme-us-socialism/" target="_blank">millennial socialism</a>”. But it is probably truer to say that their grievances grew out of too tight rather than too lose monetary policy.
QE has been road tested. We’ve little to fear from it, just as we have had little to fear from conventional monetary policy.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118843/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Stephen Kirchner, Program Director, Trade and Investment, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/below-zero-is-reverse-how-the-reserve-bank-would-make-quantitative-easing-work-118843" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How the Reserve Bank would make quantitative easing work

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">

Rate cut to boost employment and economic growth: CommSec's Ryan Felsman

<html><body>
The former RBA governor Bernie Fraser has warned that more monetary policy stimulus won't be able to boost growth or reinvigorate inflation following last week's surprise interest rate cut.
Fraser said he was not "in the slightest" bit concerned about letting inflation undershoot the range for a lengthy period of time, according to the Australian Financial Review.
This contradicts the central bank's quick action against signs of deflation in the March quarter.
Considered the architect of the Reserve Bank's 2 to 3 percent inflation target, Fraser said the economic focus should be moved to government-led stimulus rather than more interest rate cuts.
"I don't see myself as fiddling with monetary policy to deal with the deflation problem," he told The Australian Financial Review. 
"I don't see monetary policy as solving the problem with zero, or practically zero, interest rates or quantitative easing. It can't get things moving."
The potential for more official rate cuts and low inflation has prompted some economists to suggest that the Reserve Bank is nearing the limits of its powers. They are at risk of sliding into the same zero-rate constraints that have left European and Japanese central banks unable to revive their economies.
Despite suggesting he had a "certain fondness" for the Reserve Bank's inflation target, he told the Australian Financial Review he "wouldn't want people to be tempted to start adjusting that."
Fraser spoke out following the Reserve Banks issue of the weakest inflation outlook since the target range was introduced by himself in the early 1990s.
Officials are predicting that price increases would remain below two percent through to 2018, despite at least one more rate cut.
Speculation suggests the Reserve Bank will seek to reverse slowing inflation by cutting the cash rate again in October.
Currency traders predict the extra cut will push the dollar as low as US67¢ from US73.77¢
Fraser said the burden of spurring economic demand should urgently fall on fiscal policy and infrastructure spending by government.
"The Reserve Bank should be talking to the government and saying there is not much more we can do on monetary policy, that this is a classic situation for being more active on fiscal policy.
"Australia shouldn't worry too much about debt and deficit at this stage," he said.
"We need some growth."
He also criticised the board for creating confusion around the reasons for last week's sudden rate cut.
"I was a bit surprised by the rate cut on budget day because of the ambiguity that such a move is likely to create in the public mind," he said.
"Is it really lower inflation that's provoking the Reserve Bank or concern about the weakness of the economy?
"I wouldn't myself have been concerned about a short period of under 2 per cent inflation – not in the slightest."
He said the lack of confidence in the Reserve Bank is the bigger concern based on the strength of the economy.
"[It] suggests to me that they too have a few concerns about the outlook for activity."
Fraser expects inflation will increase thanks to an increase in demand caused by the lower exchange rate with the currency falling by more than a quarter over recent years
"We've only had one quarter of negative inflation.
"To me that's nothing to be unduly concerned about and the exchange rate is coming down, so that might stimulate some demand, but more directly it will add to inflation."
</body></html>

Economic Stimulus

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Economic Stimulus

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News