As a platform, we take great pride in all that we've achieved since opening our doors for business nearly six years ago. We’ve
Will we live in a country of negative interest rates?
And so, the purgatory-like inertia that is the Bank of England rate remained unchanged at 0.5 per cent for the 87th consecutive month. Must be an exciting job that, being part of the Monetary Policy Committee.
All jokes aside, the relentless entrenchment of rates at this record low doesn’t become any more palatable for savers and investors as the sands of time roll on. A decade ago to the day, BoE rates were a comfortable 4.5 per cent, and in the latter half of 2007, they climbed to the dizzy heights of 5.75 per cent. Who on earth would have bet back then that we’d find ourselves in the position we’re in now? Probably the same sort of person who bet on Leicester City to win the Premier League!
When will the status quo change?
Again, this is almost anyone’s guess. There had been some optimism within the ranks of top economists in the latter half of last year that rates could increase at some point during 2016. However, a bumpy start to the year has put paid to such hopes, and unexpectedly poor growth of just 0.4 percent during the first quarter has sparked fresh fears of a downturn. Compounding this, the uncertainty surrounding the EU referendum, the closure of stores like BHS and the poor performance across various British industries such as steel and oil & gas has left investors predicting that rates won’t reach 0.75 per cent until at least 2019.
Instead, the more likely result is that in the near future we’ll be bracing ourselves for a cut to rates. So, how low can Governor Carney go? The bad news is that zero percent isn’t even the floor, with negative interest rates becoming a possibility at some point. We’re not sounding the panic alarm just yet, and any cuts – if they were to happen - would likely just be by 25 basis points for now. But it’s fair to say that negative rates in the UK aren’t as unthinkable as they once were.
Why would central banks adopt a negative rate?
Such a hanging spectre is actually a reality for central banks in many countries already – Japan, Switzerland, Denmark and the European Central Bank among them. What this means is that depositors are actually charged for keeping their money in the bank.
The reasons for adopting negative interest rates are varied. In the cases of Sweden (2010) and Denmark (2012), the reason for doing so was to stem the flow of hot money into their respective economies. Typically though, it is used as an attempt to reinvigorate an economy by encouraging borrowing (and thus spending) by consumers and companies alike.
Another example is the European Central Bank, which opted for negative interest rates on bank deposits (they charge banks 0.3 per cent to hold cash overnight); primarily to deter the threat of deflation, but also to devalue the euro in a bid to stimulate demand for exports. Low or negative yields would discourage foreign investors, and thus see demand for the euro dwindle. While it may sound counter-productive to reduce the flow of investment, Europe’s major issue is demand, not supply, and the theory was that by encouraging exports – not to mention making borrowing more attractive – businesses within Europe would invest and expand.
Does it work in practice?
It certainly isn’t an unfounded school of thought but, make no mistake, adopting negative interest rates represents a desperate measure, and implies that all other options have been exhausted. Theory and practice, as with most things in economics, can often produce a discrepancy too. If, for example, banks did charge interest to depositors, it could result in a bank run as they look to store their cash under the mattress for free instead, which in turn would deny lenders the funding they need.
Yet if banks decide to waive such a negative charge of interest on deposits instead, they end up squeezing the profit margin between their lending and deposit rates; especially when you consider that things like mortgages are contractually tied to the interest rate. This may then result in banks becoming even less willing to lend, which would entirely defeat the original purpose of the exercise.
Aside from obvious pitfalls like these, experts believe that unintended consequences could result from negative interest rates as well. The major one being bandied about by economists is that of a currency devaluation war in the fight to boost exports, which could have disastrous effects across the globe.
So, where to from here?
Again, we must emphasise that there is no indication as yet that the Bank of England would go down this route anytime soon. However, it is something that will be giving Carney and Co plenty of food for thought, and they will be hoping that the various threats plaguing our economy – both internal and external - subside in the near future. Otherwise the MPC may well have some excruciating decisions to make before this decade is up.
Main image 'Bank of England' by George Rex. Image subject to copyright. A link to the image and appropriate licence can be found here. You must not use or reproduce this image other than in accordance with the licence.
- The EU referendum debate and us
- The experts view of our economy in 201
- Corbynomics, Clinton-Greenspan and Lady Luck
Get email updates for future blogs:
Our website offers information about saving, investing, tax and other financial matters, but not personal advice. If you're not sure whether peer-to-peer lending is right for you, please seek independent financial advice, and if you decide to invest with Lending Works, please read our Key Lender Information PDF first.
Since opening our doors back in 2014, we’ve always prided ourselves on living and breathing two key principles at Lending Works: innovation, and putting the customer first in everything we do.
With the retail sector enduring its fair share of challenges, companies are looking at new ways to attract customers, and drive conversion. In an overcrowded, dog-eat-dog marketplace, with behemoths such as Amazon flexing their muscle, it’s easier said than done.
On 4 June 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released its new regulatory framework for peer-to-peer lending (P2P); a Policy Statement known as PS19/14. As you might imagine, it's a document which, following a three-month consultation, is a hefty read of no fewer than 102 pages.
In a difficult climate, customer acquisition and lead generation present stern challenges for UK retailers, and a great deal of marketing spend invariably gets directed towards getting feet through the door.
Over the last decade, there can be little dispute that the reputation of mainstream banks – and particularly the so-called ‘Big Four’ (HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and RBS) – is at its lowest ebb.
The peer-to-peer (P2P) lending industry is now regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The regulatory framework has been designed to protect customers and promote effective competition.
January tends to be a comedown following the Christmas festivities, and, from a personal finance perspective, a time for many Britons to lick their wounds. In particular, for those who’ve over-extended their credit card, it may feel like the walls have started to close in.
A new year, and indeed a new decade has dawned. Reflecting on 2019, what seemed to have got lost in the noise and political hysteria was the fact that the UK economy actually held up remarkably well.
As the good times rolled in the mid-2000s, only a precious few sounded the alarm as lending became increasingly reckless. Northern Rock's infamous 'Together' 125 per cent mortgage epitomised the rush for high loan-to-value (LTV) deals at a time when it was thought that house prices would just keep going up forever.
For those with an eye on the economy, 'GDP day' is always one to mark off in the calendar each month. And it's been a hot topic for the UK in 2019, with the latest update showing zero growth for the period from August to October.
One of the perceived strengths of the auto-enrolment pension scheme is its simplicity – indeed, it is actually a greater effort for an employee to opt-out of a workplace pension than it is to be enrolled into one. No further actions are required, and the retirement fund grows as the months and years pass by.