Monday, April 7, 2014

Gavyn Davies: "The future for real interest rates"

From Mr. Davies' blog at the Financial Times:
The OECD pointed out last week that the ratio of public debt/GDP will reach all time historic highs in 2014, at about 120 per cent. Taken in isolation, this could certainly viewed as a worrying fact, with bad implications for the future of real interest rates and possibly inflation. A couple of days later, however, the IMF published a fascinating chapter in its latest World Economic Outlook (WEO) on global real interest rates, showing that the global real rate has fallen from about 6 per cent in the early 1980s to about zero today.

Both of these facts are of course very well known, but placed side-by-side, they still represent a stark contrast:
They also present a conundrum for policy makers and investors. Why has the surge in public debt not resulted in a large rise in real borrowing costs for the government, and for the wider economy? And what does this tell us about the future of the risk free real rate in the global economy?

The risk free rate is the bedrock of asset valuation, and is often presented as one of the great “constants” in economic models. But in the past few decades, it has been anything but constant.


Mainstream macro-economic theory assumes that the global real interest rate is determined in the market for capital or “loanable funds”. An upward shift in the demand for capital (from higher investment or more public debt) will raise real rates, and a rise in the supply of capital (from higher savings) will reduce them.
Empirical studies generally confirm that the positive association between public debt and real rates, expected in theory, does indeed exist (though this is controversial and not well pinned down). Therefore the strongly negative relationship between the two variables since 1983 is certainly a prima facie puzzle.

The solution lies in the “ceteris paribus”, or other things equal, clause implicitly inserted into all economic models. Other things, in this case, have certainly not been equal. While the rise in public debt, taken on its own, would probably have increased real rates, other economic forces have worked more powerfully in the opposite direction.

The IMF says that the main reason for the drop in real rates in the 1980s and 1990s is obvious: the easing in monetary policy that occurred after the 1979-82 Volcker tightening. After 2000, the IMF identifies other forces, each of which is associated with a different school of economic thinking....MORE
HT: The Big Picture