sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Bollard: Major central bank QE could be 'monetary protectionism', but too early to tell; Says NZ property tax distortions still exist; 'They both pushed up the NZ$'

Currencies
Bollard: Major central bank QE could be 'monetary protectionism', but too early to tell; Says NZ property tax distortions still exist; 'They both pushed up the NZ$'

By Alex Tarrant

'Money printing' policies by the world's major central banks may be a form of monetary protectionism, outgoing Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard says.

But it was still too early to tell whether this unorthodox form of monetary policy would set in over the long-run, which would create significant implications for exchange rates, capital flows and competitiveness in the global economy.

It would be disappointing if this was the case, Bollard said. There needed to be more countries running "good open exchange rate regimes leading to deeper markets."

These policies had already created significant distortions for economies like New Zealand by mis-pricing exchange rates, which was damaging for the economy's tradable sector.

Quantitative easing - the injection of newly created money into the financial system to try and jumpstart growth - by major central banks like the US Federal Reserve, ECB, and Bank of England, was one of the factors behind the high New Zealand dollar over recent years as those major currencies had devalued.

Noting the high currency posed a problem for the New Zealand economy, Bollard said it would be disappointing if 'monetary protection' did set in, after the global economy had evaded trade protectism-style policies in response to the global financial crisis.

Meanwhile, another cause of the high New Zealand dollar, tax distortions favouring property investment, still existed in New Zealand despite some having been removed in response to a surge in house prices last decade, Bollard said.

Those distortions boosted the house price cycle in the 2000s, and saw the New Zealand dollar pushed up as foreign funds flowed into the economy, as demand for property lending could not be met with domestic funding.

High NZ$

Actions to raise interest rates to cool the housing market during the last decade made New Zealand a more attractive destination for foreign capital as rates were pushed higher than in other economies. Dubbed the 'carry trade', this kept upward pressure on the New Zealand dollar.

The Reserve Bank is coming under increasing pressure from opponents of New Zealand's monetary policy who say the Bank needs to do more to try and reduce the level of the overvalued New Zealand dollar.

Those defending monetary policy in New Zealand say the root causes of the high currency, and hence the ability to help bring it down, do not sit with the central bank. They say tax settings, fiscal policy, consumer behaviour, and actions by foreign central banks are all contributing to the pressure on the New Zealand dollar.

In comments released on Thursday in the Reserve Bank's monthly bulletin, Bollard said that from 2004 onwards, there was pressure on the exchange rate due to the carry trade.

"We were in the midst of a strong housing and asset price cycle, consumption and inflation pressures were strong, and there were growing imbalances, especially in the household sector but also externally. The internal demand for debt was connected with some of the funding issues like the carry trade that we had to deal with," Bollard said.

While the Bank did take action by raising the Official Cash Rate through to 2005, it thought that would be sufficient, and paused. However, a second wind in the housing market saw the problems start up again, leading the Reserve Bank to warn the high street banks about their growing exposures to housing and the agricultural sectors.

"They responded quite noticeably to that informal warning, and it certainly helped. We should probably have done that earlier. That is definitely something we have learned," Bollard said.

But New Zealand was left with an above-average exchange rate which had been pushed up by the carry trade.

"This is a real problem and not an easy one to solve," Bollard said.

"When you look at the progress of applied economics since World War II there have been some big developments. They come from Bretton Woods onwards and they relate to our understanding about economic behaviours, about the role of governments and the management of fiscal policy. We also understand more about inflation control and monetary processes and influences," he said.

"But  our understanding of exchange rates is still lacking."

The exchange rate was essentially the price of one country compared to another country. Ideally it should reflect a country’s long term, sustainable competitiveness, Bollard said.

"When it doesn’t, it is problematic, particularly for a country like New Zealand which is very open and a price taker internationally," he said.

Tax distortions still there

There were two classes of things that could be done to tackle the high exchange rate.

"The first is to address any internal distortions. Tax distortions in the housing property sector probably exacerbated our housing cycle and the carry trade.  Some of those have been removed now which helps, but there are still arguably some distortions," Bollard said.

Monetary protection?

The second was to address international distortions, but this was much harder to achieve.

"These distortions arise from capital controls and fixed or managed exchange rate systems through a large part of the world," Bollard said.

"While a number of emerging markets have been liberalising their capital accounts – which we think is generally a good thing – we have had the global financial crisis.  One of its side effects has been quantitative easing by some of the major economies," he said.

"We have the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, arguably the European Central Bank and for a long time the Bank of Japan undertaking major interventions of an unorthodox sort which in my view have had some significant implications for exchange rates, capital flows and competitiveness.  

"So it’s not just countries like China with managed exchange rates that can create significant distortions for small open economies. Mis-priced exchange rates can be very damaging, for our tradable sector, primarily, but also to the confidence we place in our policy settings generally," Bollard said.

"In the long run we need to see more countries running good open exchange rate regimes leading to deeper markets. But that’s a very long term view," he said.

"We have been through the Global Financial Crisis without seeing the widespread trade protection that grew out of the 1930s, but we may now be seeing a form of monetary protection, which could also have distortionary effects. That would be very disappointing, but it’s still a bit too soon to judge."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

45 Comments

Well... at least he is honest..

I've always thought these guys were a cut above the rest of us...

I realize, now, that their understanding of things is not that much greater than anyone else who seeks to gain knowledge and understnding.

The message I get is that ...these guys.... our so called leaders.... have had a complete and utter lack of understanding about the impact and nature of Globalization ... particularly in their field of expertise.... finance and capital.

I've read books written in the 1990s' that alluded to all the problems and distortions we now have.

Richard Duncan has been writing about these things since the Asian crisis in the late 1990s'.

"These distortions arise from capital controls and fixed or managed exchange rate systems through a large part of the world," Bollard said.                                                           ( at least he has figured that out...finally )

Central bank response is .."business as usual"

Political response is... Free trade agrrements... with the major culprits

Go figure...

They all come from the same "school"...so I don't imagine the new guy will be any different.

Having said all that....  I can imagine how difficult is must be to bring any kind of change in a bureaucratic institution.... 

Up
0

They all come from the same "school"

 

Sure do and one is left wondering if the decile rating is at the lower end of the scale.

Up
0

Roelof...Bollard has openly admitted , just recently, to his lack of understanding  in Macroeconomics ...in fact he said , it was infantile compared with some of his peers....his admission of being clueless on currency exchange matters is disturbing to say the least.

Some form of protectionism has been brewing for some time now, and I've held the view there would be a return to Trade protectionism, but have felt that less and less likely of late.... with the push on TPP n all.

 That said, I could not quite put my finger on what it was I was seeing, but I think he has , and it's Monetary Protectionism the bastard brother to the Trade P. 

The following statement is a glaring indictment of  the unsurety of the man while in office.

 

While the Bank did take action by raising the Official Cash Rate through to 2005, it thought that would be sufficient, and paused. However, a second wind in the housing market saw the problems start up again, leading the Reserve Bank to warn the high street banks about their growing exposures to housing and the agricultural sectors.

"They responded quite noticeably to that informal warning, and it certainly helped. We should probably have done that earlier. That is definitely something we have learned," Bollard said.

With what any of us could see at the time in relation to the Bubble being perpetuated by an unwillingness to act decisively......ad nauseum.....informal warning...? responded..?laughter is a response, if only to confirm they got the joke.

 Thank you Alex , for the good work here, a shame the man's got so much to say for himself  now , this kind of open, honest ,observant behavior would have been appreciated more while in office, it also would have confirmed he, as Governor, was punching way above his weight ,well intended maybe, but impotent, and poorly supported by Govt policy.

Up
0

Bollard only mentions this now - Geez I've been prattling on about this currency protectionism/QE etc effect for god knows how long. Maybe some of my irritating emails to some of the Political Parties and Bureaucrats on this issue have finally got the message through - however I tend to think most of them hit the delete button.

Up
0

Sorry, Notaneco.  Obviously, I need to read more of your post in regard to such things.

For me it's a question of whether the occurrence of M.P, is a byproduct of a race to the bottom. as in , not the outcome in design, but a consequence of design ,creating an aggressive (safety) for want of a better word as Q.E. proves itself a dose for the Junkie Market not a curative for the productive Market.

My point being it (M.P.) would become a so what position if Productive Markets stall, or in fack shrink further.

Up
0

"Too early to tell", he says. Yet he admits the carry trade has caused real problems since 2004. The current account was already a disaster from 2005 to 2008, reaching 8.9% of GDP in 2008. That should have said to Bollard in logic that high interest rates, rather than dampening demand for credit, increased its supply. So they were having the opposite effect to their intended effect.

Whatever tax distortions we supposedly had or have are surely trivial compared to this flood of foreign money. The UK and other places show that property stamp duties and capital gains taxes make no real difference to property bubbles, if people generally believe property values will keep climbing, and if money is readily available. (I'm not necessarily against them; just don't fool ourselves they will be a great panacea)

He is still moaning about the rest of the world. He is right in terms of their effects. But New Zealand moaning about it, but otherwise doing nothing, is truly pathetic. The rest of the world is going to say "hang on, we're causing NZ a problem, we'd better stop"? I don't think so.

In a competitive world you have to react to what the market is doing, especially as a small player. The market is not going to change for you. In fact as long as there's a few suckers out there, they will carry on. I'm afraid sitting in an ivory tower theorising on how the world should work just does not cut it. 

Up
0

Stephen Hulme says: The UK and other places show that property stamp duties and capital gains taxes make no real difference ...

 

Well Stephen .. here's a suggestion for you .. Gina Rhinehart's wealth is tied up in a family trust settled by her father Lang Hancock, with her 4 children as beneficiaries .. Gina as trustee .. that trust is worth $20 billion .. and .. if you search the press reports (there's enough of them) you will find there are currently a series of court cases on foot by the children trying to oust her as trustee because she has been up to some skull-duggery .. the trust was to have vested this year .. and Gina extended the vesting date to the year 2068 in order to avoid CGT tax, because the capital gains will bankrupt them (the children) .. (and kill her golden goose)  sufficient to say the existence and threat of "capital gains taxes" do have a serious (distorting?) affect on business (and private) investment decisions .. do research it .. have a look .. the children are broke, would you believe ..

 

The statement "they make no difference" is a myth propagated by vested interests ..

Up
0

iconoclast - I have obviously had no lasting impact upon your thoughts and should view your confusion of authorship as a sign that I need to retire from further comment.

 

Or are you just tired and emotional?

Up
0

????????????? If you are now saying you didn't say that, it sure doesnt read that way.

Up
0

Stephen Hulme says: The UK and other places show that property stamp duties and capital gains taxes make no real difference ...

 

Think: Stephen L

Up
0

My abject opologies. Got it. Strewth, I must be tired

Up
0

Thanks, I'm over it - get some sleep maybe. 

Up
0

icon,

Stephen Hulme may not be pleased you've attributed my comment to him; but never mind.

Am not sure if you are very much for or against capital gains taxes. I am somewhat indifferent. Rhinehart's rather sad case shows the super wealthy probably will avoid them. Maybe a simple annual property tax makes more sense. (although will cause cashflow problems for some).

I do know that in the UK property prices doubled from 2000 to 2008; and in London have continued to climb since. Despite an albeit small capital gains tax; and stamp duty on buying a house of from memory 3-4%.

Am interested what distortions our tax policies are causing now, that Bollard refers to? I assumed it was the lack of proprty or capital gains taxes. Any thoughts? Are the Nats or Labour proposing fixes? 

Up
0

For 20billion, they would pay a %, say 5% CGT, I cant see how it sends them bankrupt.

and the law was already in place, bugger it I paid tax in a similar situation, I fail to see why she isnt because she's worth a lot and can fiddle it.

regards.

 

Up
0

CGT rates in AU are a lot more than  5%

Two elective regimes. First regime was approx 33%. Changed in 2003 to your ordinary (marginal) tax rates on 50% of the gain. Choose the one thats best for you.

 

Bankruptcy were her words. What I think she meant was it would force them to divest a heck of a lot of the "assets". As a forced seller the price would be a "distressed" price.

Up
0

Yet if she had sold in the boom times she would have made a bigger %.  Im sure she could have worked it to keep the shares in house and still get enough $s for the tax man.

I can kind of understand that losing the family business because of death taxes seems a bit OTT...but she would have had a substantial ability to borrow based on the profits.

I cant understand why her kids are "broke"....maybe its the equiv of WINZ to lazy or useless to work?

regards

 

 

Up
0

I have never seen a case or proof that stamp duties in anyway change market behaviour, they are simply part of the tax regime. In effect a GST....

CGT on the other hand performs 2 functions, one it taxes an otherwise un-taxed profit....this should include shares btw and not just property so we should have a broad and level playing field so ppl invest to make a real profit and not to dodge tax.  2, yes it seems it can have an effect of less volitility in the housing market and stops the worst of a property bubble...Now I'll admit the case for the second is not huge.....but for the first it definately is.

regards

Up
0

Steven - Your obsession with CGT tells me you don't understand the current tax laws in NZ very well.  If you desire a broad and level playing field I would suggest that the easiest way to achieve this is for everyone to be an individual business which would remove all people from the sheltered position of Nanny State.

For example you could contract your job to your employer or other business and be accountable financially/taxation wise for the "YOU" in  business.  You could do your own taxes, PAYE, Kiwisaver, student loan, GST, OSH policy, ACC, insurances and the plethora of other compliance issues that business must deal with on a daily basis. You might not have much time for writing on interest.co.nz by the time you complete all these tasks and work and run your business but I really don't see that as being an issue.

 

If you really feel the need to pay more taxes, I suggest you could voluntarily donate these to the IRD.

 

 

 

 

Up
0

No, Im not interested in the libertarian "society"  Im perfectly happy with a degree of socialism mixed into the overall system we have, especially as its more cost effective for the nation (public healthcare, public education etc....).

Obsessed, with CGT, not really but I interested in fixing anything that distorts the playing field, for NZ, no CGT is one of them.   As a PAYE it seems I am actually one of the 15% that pays the bulk of the tax.

In terms of accounting of course it seems no one is interested in accounting for the damage they do in the name of profit.

I'd suggest you move to china where I think you'd feel far more at home in the free for all.

Ive worked for myself btw.

regards

 

 

Up
0

Steven - your Libertarian "Society" line is rather flimsy and narrow. Have you actually ever considered how much voluntary work is undertaken annually by Kiwis fulfilling social goals and objectives of communities? There are thousands of people in NZ who volunteer to important organistations daily from Volunteer FireFighters and Rescue, Ambulance, surf life-saving, meals on wheels, transporting the elderly or other needy to Doctors and Hospital appointements, local fundraising, sporting organisations, the list is endless and this is what makes communities. And guess what in the Communities I have lived in all this donating of time and energy and money was done by private enterprise. 

 

Volunteer Fire Fighters and Ambulance staff have to train weekly attend a plethora of National training regimes and without fail answer their pagers and/or sirens 24/7.  The voluntary social mix already works absolutely fine. People already raise money to help out in just about every circumstance I can think of when someone needs help.  In my mind when we abnegate our responsibilities to each other and hand that control over to Government or it's Agencies then society becomes fragmented. This is especially evident in Cities where neighbours don't even know each other.

 

If your Socialist theory worked we would not witness so many problems in society from poverty, child abuse, elderly abuse, binge drinking and heavy drugs use, illiterate people, high crime and prison rates, victims without rights, hospital waiting lists etc. How far are you prepared to see society values decline?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

yes it seems it can have an effect of less volitility in the housing market and stops the worst of a property bubble...Now I'll admit the case for the second is not huge

 

The Australian experience would suggest a CGT is going to have about zero effect in preventing the worst of a property bubble. CGT introduced in Aus in the 1980s

Up
0

I've been observing stamp duty with interest here in Aus. I have a few observations on it:

- Many of the states like SA have become quite reliant on it, and when there is a housing downturn their books suffer quite badly

- When property is booming it doesn't seem to disincentivise property buying: people seem OK to fork it out knowing they are buying into a market where the stamp duty they pay will be made up within a year by price increases. But when property is dead, like now, it really does push the market even lower. This really accentutates the boom / bust nature of stamp duty and its problematic nature for state governments

Here in SA the state govt is seriously considering getting rid of stamp duty, and having a broader based land tax

 

Up
0

Your State government seems to be growing a brain Matt. Revenue from a land tax (unimproved value hopefully) is much easier to predict and is probably the most difficult tax to avoid. Also it is a credit to the Australian federal system that SA is even ALLOWED to do this. Can't see anything like this happening here, more's the pity.

Up
0

re New Zealand moaning about it, but otherwise doing nothing, is truly pathetic

 

Bulls eye

Up
0

The exchange rate was essentially the price of one country compared to another country. Ideally it should reflect a country’s long term, sustainable competitiveness, Bollard said.

"When it doesn’t, it is problematic, particularly for a country like New Zealand which is very open and a price taker internationally," he said.

 

No kidding Sherlock. So why didn't you do anything about it!

 

Greenspan, Bernanke, Bollard et al wringing their hands and claiming they can't understand why the theoretical models they have all of us following don't work. Maybe that's because they never did. What did was inflating economies on a sea of bank created credit and thinking they were economic geniuses. Where we are now is bouncing along at the limit, repaying a little debt then borrowing a little more.

 

In Bollard's case not only has he been following the wrong models but he is supine as well. Funny how people in positions such as his get to the end of their tenure and all they can think about is trying to massage their legacy and reputation.

http://unframednz.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/hello-world/

Up
0

Here's another pearler - the outgoing RB Guv trying to explain why our banks are creaming it whilst the rest of us struggle:

 

"The banks have been efficient from a productive point of view and from a dynamic point of view, I think they have been quite innovative. From an allocative efficiency point of view, it is worth asking why the banks can continue to earn returns through the cycle which are large by most standards. Banks are learning to live with lower returns although they are still higher than in most other banking systems."

 

 

Up
0

Absolutley Gobsmacking stuff Kate.....what was he trying to say..?

I'll attempt a lay translation

The Banks have taken maximum advantage of a Bubble I helped create and sustain.

The banks have made untold loot at the margins, they really knew how to get that baby to give up the candy.

I'm amazed at how far they have been able to blow this bubble...it must be near a World record  .

I can see no end to the Banks cleverness in profitmaking.

Gee , Banks are great aren't they......I wish I knew more about Banking.

Up
0

Gee , Banks are great aren't they......I wish I knew more about Banking.

 

I think he did and got paid to play along.

 

And we still give them air time.

Up
0

He should have spared us the whimpy goodbye diatribe and just stood naked on the steps outside No. 1 The Terrace... 

 

That I would have understood fully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

Now that..is funny Kate...yes, that would have encapsulated his Reign, as his bones clattered out a hollow tune in a stiff  Wellington Southerly.

 Yes !

Up
0

Its all out in the open now about the RBNZ's priorities. Who regulates who?

New Zealand's big four Australian-owned banks earn more out of the nation than banks in most other countries, but that's the price that must be paid for a sound financial system, according to former Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10837096

Up
0

Love their headline:

 

Big bank profits the price for stability - Bollard.

 

 

 

 

Up
0

He's basically given them his stamp of approval to do what they like. Why doesn't he just say "They are too big to fail, leave them alone"

Up
0

If it wasn't so painful for elderly depositors I could laugh about Bollard's omission of the RBNZ's slavishly complicit role in keeping the OCR locked down at emergency rate levels to better facilitate large scale wealth transfer by the Australian banking system in NZ.

 

Such collective banking actions can only be described as racketeering.

Up
0

There is no alternative - There's nothing we can do - We will monitor closely

 

How about "we screwed up with our idiotic theories and have dug ourselves such a deep hole we don't know how to get out of it. Can someone else please try something different that might actually reflect reality"

Up
0

Oh.....silly me - sound Financial stability is all about the banks stability and I thought it referred to NZ's Financial stability and that stability was meant for the people and the country.

 

Perhaps Mr Bollard might like to tell NZ'ers how much some of these Aussie owned parent banks received in bailout monies from the Federal Reserve?  Money Morning Australia have been on about this issue for 4 years but not a whisper from the bowels of bureacracy. All as I can say is thank-goodness for the Dodd - Frank Act in the US who made the Fed Reserve PRINT who got the bailout funds. I believe it is called disclosure !

 

http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120927/we-said-this-four-years-ago-but…

 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

"The Aussie banking sector would have been toast without those three direct and indirect taxpayer funded bailouts. Given the fragile and corrupt state of the global banking system, it could still be toast."

 

Didn't the FED make big loans to the RBNZ in 2008 during Lehman and the RBNZ was accepting from the NZ banks what were effectively MBS for loans without which they were illiquid at best. In a crisis the NZ banks cannot survive without emergency assistance from the RBNZ and the government in the form of a guarantee. 

Up
0

Good link Notaneco..! cheers.

Up
0

notaneconomist, your contentions about Federal Reserve USD liquidity support for the RBA is well documented here with the added bonus of .xls evidence, albeit truncated to 2010.

 

I guess it is up to the RBA which bank enjoyed the USD liquidity to make good on due liabilities.

Up
0

Stephen H - first link provides details of banks around the world that received bailouts.

 

http://projects.propublica.org/tables/treasury-facilities-loans

 

Second link - sorry its a lengthy document.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/09/02/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-…

On this site there is a link to further info on who got what.

 

 

Up
0

Very funny Christov. Many laughs here at that one.

Up
0

Yes, Sore-loser, when will they know enough is enough?

 

They certainly are in need of a rough reminder.

Up
0

For now keep spreading the knowledge and definitely what you are feeling..... sooner of later there will be a critical mass.

Up
0

Don't underestimate the power of the force!

Up
0

What a cardboard cutout of a naked Bollard on the steps of the Reserve Bank?

 

Great, that'll do.

 

Up
0