Explainer
A global problem? Liz Truss’s claims on financial
chaos fact-checked
We look at claims made by the PM and the chief
secretary to the Treasury that have raised eyebrows
Jasper
Jolly
@jjpjolly
Thu 29 Sep
2022 15.19 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/29/liz-truss-tax-cuts-claims-market-turmoil
After days of
silence, Liz Truss has finally faced questions on the UK financial market
turmoil triggered by the government’s plans for sweeping tax cuts.
The prime
minister agreed to a series of interviews with local BBC radio stations on
Thursday, while Chris Philp, Kwasi Kwarteng’s number two at the Treasury, also
answered questions on BBC radio.
The
chancellor is yet to answer questions this week, despite the Bank of England
being forced to make a massive £65bn intervention in markets on Wednesday
morning to prevent a liquidity squeeze on pension funds.
But some of
the claims in those interviews have raised eyebrows as they insisted government
measures were not to blame for the turbulence. Here we check the facts.
The
mini-budget was not a big surprise
The claim
Liz Truss
said: “No, it isn’t [wrong policy] because... the majority of the package we
announced on Friday was the support on energy for individuals and businesses
and I think that was absolutely the right thing to do.”
The verdict
It is true
the energy price guarantee was the majority of the plan announced on Friday.
However, that only holds if the costs are assessed over the next two years: the
total costs of permanent unfunded tax cuts would be much higher over the years.
Policy decisions announced at the mini-budget will cost a net £161bn by the
2026-27 fiscal year, according to the Treasury.
But Truss’s
statement is also potentially misleading in a more fundamental way: the energy
support for households was first announced on 8 September, and Truss pledged
“equivalent support” for businesses on the same day. Financial markets have had
weeks to anticipate the costs (and many economists had come to the conclusion
that borrowing to support energy bills would be cheaper than letting the
economy crash).
It was the
unfunded tax cuts that investors and economists cited as the major news in
Friday’s announcement – and the cause for the surge in the UK government’s
borrowing costs.
The Bank’s
intervention has sorted out the problem
The claim
Chris
Philp, the chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “When the Bank of England
yesterday saw a very particular and specific issue with long-dated gilts and
the way they interacted with certain pension vehicles, exercising and using
their independent powers they intervened to sort that out.”
The verdict
Philp is
correct that the Bank needed to act because of technical problems faced by
pension funds. As the interest rates on gilts – or government bonds – soared,
the pension funds were forced to dump the same gilts to cover calls for
collateral required under complex derivative contracts. That pushed down prices
and pushed up gilt interest rates further (price and yield move inversely),
exacerbating a problem and threatening a spiral out of control.
However,
Philp’s statement ignores a very important factor: interest rates jumped in the
first place because of the tax cuts. On the day of Kwarteng’s speech, the rates
on longer-term bonds jumped markedly, up from 3.77% when the market opened to a
high of 4.08% – already a big move in bond market terms. After Kwarteng doubled
down on the tax cuts over the weekend, the 30-year rate soared to above 5%
before the Bank intervened.
There is
another caveat with Philp’s statement that may make for queasy reading: it will
not be clear for several weeks whether the Bank of England has indeed “sorted
out” the problems.
The UK
market turmoil is part of a global problem
The claim
Truss said:
“People are going to pay less national insurance, but we are in difficult
economic times. I don’t deny this. This is a global problem.”
The verdict
The energy
crisis prompted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is indeed a problem across the
global energy system, and governments across the world are having to come up
with big, expensive support packages to satisfy voters whose costs are rising.
The dollar has risen sharply against most major currencies as investors flee to
the safety of the world’s reserve currency and as the US Federal Reserve raises
interest rates sharply.
Yet other
countries are not facing quite the same level of financial market turmoil.
Investors gauge the riskiness of a country’s bonds by comparing the spread (the
difference) between bond interest rates for debt of a similar maturity. Greek
and Italian bond interest rates have risen in recent weeks, but the UK this
week surged past them on some maturities. If the world economy has caught a
cold, then the UK is suffering more than others. And there is no doubt the
sell-off of the pound and rising bond yields accelerated in direct response to
the unfunded tax giveaways announced by the chancellor on Friday last week.
The Bank’s
intervention wasn’t unusual
The claim
Philp said:
“The Bank of England, acting independently, intervened and got that sorted out,
as the Bank of Japan did in the yen-dollar currency market a few days ago.”
The verdict
Philp
repeatedly insisted that the Bank of England’s intervention was not that
unusual, citing another wealthy society facing the prospect of slow growth and
an ageing population: Japan. However, the Bank of Japan intervention was aimed
at supporting its currency for reasons that were arguably political, rather
than trying to prevent a full-on risk to financial stability.
The defence
could also flounder for another reason: cerebral disputes about central bank
interventions are not likely to distract voters for long if their monthly
mortgage payments soar.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário