Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » The economy

Why base rate hasn't been cut to 0%

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 06 August 2012  |  Comments 23 comments

The Bank of England has resisted pressure to cut base rate, possibly right down to 0%. Here's why.

Why base rate hasn't been cut to 0%

Last Thursday, in the latest of its monthly meetings, the MPC again voted to hold the base rate at 0.5% a year. Remarkably, this is the 41st time that the committee has agreed to keep the base rate at this level.

Then again, given the widespread weakness of the British economy, why hasn't the MPC voted to cut the base rate to 0.25% or even zero? After all, the US Federal Reserve openly operates a zero interest rate policy, so why don't we follow suit? Surely millions would benefit?

What's more, almost 60% of you voted that you thought base rate should be cut in our poll last week. Check out Should the base rate be cut to 0.25%?

Winners and losers

By reducing base rate to zero (perhaps by two quarter-point cuts), the Bank of England would provide much-needed support to hard-pressed British businesses and borrowers. In particular, companies and individuals with debts directly linked to base rate would immediately benefit from any future cuts to it.

For example, homeowners with tracker mortgages would immediately and fully benefit from more cuts to base rate, no matter how small. Indeed, home loans with no-margin or negative-margin rates linked to base rate could produce zero or even negative rates. Imagine having a mortgage where your lender pays you!

Likewise, businesses and homeowners with variable-rate loans would eventually enjoy lower rates should further cuts to base rate take place. Even so, lenders will take their time passing on reductions to these borrowers and may not pass on base-rate cuts in full.

Of course, savers would suffer if the base rate did fall to zero. Already, savings rates are at all-time lows, making it tough for British savers to earn decent returns on their spare cash. If base rate hits zero, then I suspect that the majority of UK savings accounts will pay no interest or only the tiniest returns. This will cause further hardship to tens of millions of savers, especially pensioners.

QE: the alternative to cutting base rate

Rather than make further cuts to base rate, the Bank of England has so far resorted to quantitative easing (QE). By electronically 'printing money', the Bank pumps fresh funds into the economy by buying bonds from banks. In theory, this should bring down the cost of borrowing for banks and businesses alike.

In several rounds of QE since March 2009, the Bank has injected a total of £375 billion into the UK money supply. Sadly, this seems to have had little effect, because bank lending remains subdued. Even though banks have more cash on their balance sheets, demand for new loans remains weak.

As a result, QE doesn't seem to have spurred credit growth and has hardly stimulated the economy. Then again, it's hard to know how bad things would have been without QE, which may have restrained the latest recession. Check out Pensioners deserve compensation! for more.

Inflation: the lurking danger

In my view, the ongoing weakness of the UK economy provides more than enough motivation for the Bank of England to cut the base rate again.

For example, if economic growth is negative or zero this quarter, then perhaps the Bank should respond with a 0.25% cut to base rate in October or November. If this weakness continues into the final quarter of 2012, then the Bank could respond with a similar cut in February or March 2013, taking the base rate to an unprecedented 0%.

Then again, I suspect that the Bank is not quite ready to give up on QE just yet by resorting to lowering base rate. This is because it remains afraid of inflation -- the rising cost of living. The Bank's target is to keep inflation at around 2% a year, based on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) measure.

Unfortunately, the bank has done a spectacularly poor job of meeting this goal. Since adopting the CPI target of 2% in December 2003, inflation has been above-target for 70 months out of 103. In other words, the Bank has met its CPI goal less than a third of the time, for a failure rate of 68%.

So while it has room to cut the base rate all the way to 0%, I suspect that the Bank will not act by cutting its base rate this year, even as companies and citizens suffer further hardship!

More on the economy:

No change in base rate or QE

Bank of England: two new stimulus schemes launched

European Commission: Taxpayers to avoid bailing out banks in future

Should we scrap the minimum wage?

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (23)

  • Basia02a
    Love rating 43
    Basia02a said

    As devil's advocate - Has cutting the base rate provided a boost to the economy? Has a record low base rate for a record time boosted the economy? I think the answer to these questions is NO. If every time you do A(cut the base rate) it results in B(no effect), why do you think that doing A again will result in C.

    How about a radical re-think, and raising interest rates, putting money in the hands of savers such as pensioners, which they can now spend?

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • JoeEasedale
    Love rating 174
    JoeEasedale said

    How about a radical re-think, and raising interest rates, putting money in the hands of savers such as pensioners, which they can now spend?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    spot on Basia02a. And we wont start to recover until base rate is at least 5%.

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Regardless of the interest rate, if banks do not lend than the economy which is based on highly geared,high risk lending and returns will never grow. It's not in the banks or governments interest to help the people. Rememeber the economy is the banks and stock exchanges, the economy is not inclusive of the effects on people. We are acting as a commodity to the international lenders, banks go bust and we bail them out and it's as plain and simple as that.

    Raising interest rates would be suicide for the nation. Do you recall the dilemma when we fell out of the ERM and the stupidity of overnight high double digit interest rates? The interest rate was raised to protect the interests of banks and the silly looks on the faces of the financial planners(government) at the suffering of us ordinary people. If the government was concerned about the people than it would have let the banks go bust and bought our nations householders debt back with our tax money. Note when you buy debt you buy it at peanuts. then we all would have lower loan amounts and fewer payments to make, less foreclosures, less unemployed and the economy would have been growing. but that's common sense which is lacking, negligently in our government and financial planners.

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 600
    Mike10613 said

    It doesn't really matter how cheap the money is. Industry and commerce won't borrow because the risks are high. People aren't taking out new mortgages because the risk of losing their jobs is high. A company in business selling to the rich might leverage the business. However, if they are selling to an ever poorer ordinary people, then sales are falling in real terms. Money moves from rich people to rich people and stays at the top of the economic pyramid. They spend on luxury goods, Wimbledon champagne and strawberries, new hats for Ascot and tickets for the Olympics.

    Is any of that money coming your way, however indirectly? 90% of the population won't get a sniff of it, except for maybe the people on minimum wages sucking up to visitors at the Olympics...

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickthecrip2
    Love rating 17
    nickthecrip2 said

    Another article on here tells about record low interest mortgages but that they are much harder to get because of lending restrictions by the lenders. What is the point of QE when the banks just hang on to the money & add it to their balance sheets? It just fuels the bank bonus system & does nothing to get things in our economic system from moving. Money needs to move around to grow otherwise it stagnates & falls in value, which is what we are seeing now. Lowering the base rate will not move things along. Measures are needed to make the banks into more like they used to be, lenders & researched risk takers, & to get rid of this credo of personal & corporate greed that has taken them over since the 70's.

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Stargazer
    Love rating 11
    Stargazer said

    As nickthecrip2 says, the problem is not necessarily that no one is willing to borrow the money - I suspect there are plenty of people out there who can't wait to move house, for example...if they ever get the opportunity. The main problem is that despite the oft-trumpeted schemes to encourage institutions to lend more freely, we're still in the middle of as sharp a credit crunch as we had four years ago when it all began.

    It seems that the government is encouraging banks to lend by announcing incentives but the banks seem unable or unwilling to take these incentives up in reality. The net effect is that many people who would normally be considered a low risk for a loan are excluded just don't meet lending criteria these days. Until this changes I can't see things improving much.

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    This is a terrible article. Both badly researched while at the same time completely missing the point. Tanni (above) does a much better if incomplete job of explaining it and even manages to do it in fewer words.

    The Bank of England, much like every other central bank, has only one job and that is to protect the banking system. All this talk about IR's and IR targets is absolute folly. IR targets exist to preserve the banks' capital and to prevent the economy from over-leveraging and bringing the lenders (the banks) down.

    In this regard the BoE is highly unlikely to reduce the base rate further. Why? Because it will have no effect. QE is a much better tool as it pumps money directly into the banks from where it flows into their casino operations pushing up the cost of living and allowing the banks to profit very nicely, thank you very much. That's also why we will likely see much more of this while the banks struggle to pay their bonuses.

    If the objective was to help the economy then the banks would never of been allowed to serve such important economic functions while at the same time endangering themselves as they have. And even then any bank which failed to conduct itself properly should have been allowed to go bust and the wealthy investors who funded it should have taken the hit, as opposed to the poor old taxpayer as was eventually the case.

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • edwardmk2879
    Love rating 57
    edwardmk2879 said

    LandOfConfusion and Tanni are on target. We are seeing the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of debts on a grand scale. Quantative easing is fraud as currently practised, as it only benefits the small cabal of Bankers with access to the newly created money. They feel entitled to extract their small percentages of the gargantuan amounts 'printed' resulting in enormous bonuses. The creation of new money diminishes the value of the currency held by the vast majority who are not part of the scam. The system exists to protect the Banks at all costs, and those who benefit most from their activities. The price inflation resulting from money printing harms the most vulnerable in society, especially those on fixed incomes such as pensioners in private pension schemes.

    As we all have an interest in our own currency, we are all shareholders in that currency. If we held shares in a company, and were told operational requirements dictated a two for one share split, we'd be mighty angry if the executive board kept all of the newly issued stock. Yet we accept money printing where a small faceless unelected executive board reap the benefits, while the vast majority of citzens are defrauded.

    In a correctly working capitalist system, if capitalists get it right they get wealthy. If they mis-allocate capital, they go bust. When the capitalists are allowed to profit when they are right and are bailed out at other folks expense when they are wrong, there is massive moral hazard corrupting the financial system.

    If money printing was done fairly, the new money would be distributed to citizens, and not the Banks. This could be the modern equivalent of a 'Debt Jubilee' from days of yore. As sure as turkeys wouldn't vote for Xmas, I don't see the Banksters voting for that one just yet.

    We need a modern day Cromwell to kick out the corruption. I'm not holding my breath!

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • sippag
    Love rating 7
    sippag said

    Spot on the only reason for very low rates was to allow the banks to recover at our expense. If they had reduced the rate to 3% for say a fixed period of 3 years we would all have been delighted, except the banks. The swing of funds going into the banks instead of to savers hits everyone, reduced buying power, reduced jobs and results in shrinkage of the economy.

    Cheers

    Report on 07 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Supercal
    Love rating 3
    Supercal said

    So, why are fixed rate mortgages flying off the shelves?

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Henry-GBG
    Love rating 46
    Henry-GBG said

    Both QE and interest rates are clearly irrelevant to the rotten performance of the UK economy, which incidentally is reflected in exchange rates and thus into the prices of imported goods in the shops.

    The place to look is in the high streets and on the industrial estates. Count the For Sale and To Let boards. Prices and rents are not falling to market-clearing levels, thereby creating a supply-side blockage. Action to address this problem is essential. Inflation will work by reducing rents and land prices in real terms but it is not a satisfactory solution.

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Bobski
    Love rating 19
    Bobski said

    They would probably have been better off giving the money straight to homeowners to pay off mortgages...then the homeowners could spend the money they were giving to the banks in interest and the banks will have money too :)

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • mgbboy55
    Love rating 6
    mgbboy55 said

    It is frightening when you read supposed financial "experts" extolling the virtues of cutting base rates in order to reduce the cost of borrowing. There is now a complete disconnect between B of E base rates and lending rates (particularly new rates being offered). I work for a number of small businesses all striving to survive (grow? forget it!) across a range of industry sectors. Bank financing is almost non existant and where it is available it is only on secured lending against property (where the TOTAL of all lending against that property is to be no more than 60% of the value that the bank put on it - normally 20 - 25% below even a modest curtrent market valuation) and then at an interest rate of probably 6,7 or 8% - this is for secured lending. Unsecured lending? forget it. Just last week i had one client turning over £800K this year - showing a NET profit in the management figures of £80K year to date, running a modest £20k overdraft. RBS (along with its subsidiary NatWest) by far the worst bank out there for (not) lending wrote withdrawing, without any warning, the overdraft facility, demanded it be converted into a secured loan and wanting BOTH directors houses (over £400k equity combined) as security - the loan rate offered? 8.9%.

    THIS is what is happening in the real world, not i suspect a world where politicians, central bankers or journalists ever venture. So please, a half % cut in base rates will benefit a few with old tracker mortgages perhaps (just how many are there left of those out there?) but as fir the rest of the country? it will make not one iota of difference.

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mgbboy55
    Love rating 6
    mgbboy55 said

    edwardmk2879 is correct in his view on capitalism. Capitalism as a system died on the day when failing businesses (in this case Northern Rock and RBS/NatWest) went bust but were then nationalised by the Govt. and therefore not alowed to fail correctly. As soon as that happened capitalism was dead. We now live in a quasi capitalist/socialist state where major assets (RBS/LLoyds etc) are state owned institutions operated by employees (right across the board in both companies, i know i have to deal with them) who now know they are Govt employees but on private sector packages acting in a high handed "we can do what we want" attitude sucking the life blood out of the true wealth creators in this country. Unless and untill ALL very large but incompetant companies are permitted to fail when their managements and staff get it wrong, capitalism will remain a failed system in this country

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Capitalism works, so long as you have competent people at the helm and the people's interest at heart. The bank of England is not run for England. The people at the helm; government, financial planners are only in the business of lining their own pockets and moving to tax havens abroad. So who is looking out for the people of this land? Not our democratically selected government. In Victorian times this type of behaviour/negligence and failure of duty by our elite leaders/planners would have been declared nothing short of treason. Hang the lot of 'em!

    Report on 08 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Dame
    Love rating 27
    Dame said

    The ONLY way to get out of this terminal slump is to generate growth, to export and to bring money INTO the country. Our chickens have come home to roost as for 40 years we have seen manufacturing industry decline under BOTH Labour and Conservative.

    We were told making products and selling them was old fashioned and that services, finance and the biggest lie the 'knowledge economy' was the way to compete globally. Um, well that worked out well. Sickeningly, anyone who questioned the wisdom of this was told they were a dinosaur. Any real assistance to put manufacturing on a world stage was seen as anathema to the ideology of free market economics.

    If you have ever watched watch Mega Machines on the Discovery Channel, it tells the story of these amazing, enormous and multi million pound, mining and drilling machines used worldwide. Where are they all made Germany. Go up to Gaydon in Warwickshire to the National Car Museum, it is both awe inspiring and thoroughly depressing. It is a mausoleum to the British Car Industry. Every car in there was either made by a defunct British company or bought by a foreign concern. Something has gone very badly wrong in this country in my life time (45 years) We have the skills, the inventiveness and the people to be leading edge manufacturing economy. 8 out of 12 F1 Teams are here in the UK, why because we can push the limits of designing and manufacturing.

    The Government, rightly to my mind, has cut public expenditure however this is the only tool they see to be prepared to use. We need to work out how to rebalance the economy. How to help our companies to make products that other countries want, to export them and to trade and bring money in to the UK. I am not talking nationalisation (though the success of privatisation is very questionable) but heaven above how about using the tax system, business rates and councils to assist and to incentivise rather than penalise? Offer financial incentives to encourage business to establish and grow rather than taxing them out of existence? We need a plan Mr Cameron, a long term plan that ALL parties sign up to.

    QE is not working as all is is doing is pouring vast sums of tax payers money into the banks balance sheets without, seemingly, any requirement to lend that money back out. We saved various banks 4 years ago by nationalising them but again there was no caveat of zero bonuses, share options etc. until you pay us it all back plus interest. One of the arguments at the time was that if that happened all the great and good of finance would decamp abroad. Well you know what, as they were jointly culpable for getting us into this mess perhaps we should let them go (along with all the arses in the Treasury, FSA and BofE at the time) as they were clearly not as clever as they thought they were.

    Being no fan of the emperors new clothes government of Blair & Brown but I had high hopes from Cameron but he has turned out to be such a disappointment. His government seem to be absolutely clueless. It has no answers apart from cutting expenditure and raising taxes and this has no filtered down to local councils who now see themselves as organisations dedicated to extracting as much money from the taxpayer, householder, car driver, business as possible. I always think back to the Victorians. They seemed to have a vision and a confidence. They were were bold and brave and got on made things happens.

    Sorry for the rant but I get so pissed off with our so called leaders. It strikes me that throughout history the more disillusioned people become with their leaders it just opens the door for for some very unsavoury times to come in with simplistic solutions and to point fingers at scapegoats for our woes.

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Dame
    Love rating 27
    Dame said

    Sorry 'types' not times!

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mgbboy55
    Love rating 6
    mgbboy55 said

    As long as we have politicians ( i refuse to call them leaders as this term tends to indicate a degree of intelligence, discipline and honesty) who have only ever been politicians and have no idea how the real world works then we have no chance of ever getting out of this mess. Does anybody really believe for instance that George Osborne could ever get a role as a finance director in a large corporation? No chance of course!

    Heres a radical idea, nobody - of any political persuasion - should be allowed to even be considered as a politician until they can demonstrate a minimum of 20 years of real work in the real world. What do you think?

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Dame
    Love rating 27
    Dame said

    I agree. It does seem odd that you can get your can hands on the highest office having done nothing else but be a professional politician all your adult life. Having said that are we not to blame? If we insisted on a better quality of candidate, stopped complaining and got involved we wouldn't be presented with the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel!

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 43
    hopefultom said

    Dame

    I agree with just about everything you say. Your last paragraph carries chilling echoes of 1930s Germany, and where that led them.

    It's hard to know who to support when no-one seems to represent our interests; I'll be voting UKIP next time, without much faith, as the least bad option.

    The only crumb of comfort is that the malign influence of the Libdems should shrink when they are, surely, deservedly decimated at the next election.

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    None of the current political parties are capable of runnig a tap let alone the country. We require a new party made up of independents from each town and city in the UK. These independents should be ordinary joes or persons of good community standing and have to stand up for their community. No more lobbying firms that treat our MP's to a good time (remember Osbourne holidaying on a fianaciers yacht trying to get funds for his party? Mr Blair advising foriegn businessmen/insituitions whats all this about...in my book this is corruption)

    These independents can work and HAVE to work for the common good of the citizens of the UK, not the banks, not europe. We are a sovereign nation...it is about time we started acting like one and used our own ways to grow the economy and create jobs. We need to take the lead and stop following. We require a diverse workforce which needs service and manufacturing industries. We should stop relying on our european and american friends to make us things ( Remember the french power firm EDF who was supposed to ensure we have no power shortages in the future: well all thats in the air and forgotten about amongst many other U turns) as even they have shifted their jobs to china and india. None of these countries act in the interest of the people,they only act in the interest of big business. Again this is diliberate attack on our living standards and infrastructure is nothing short of treason.

    we need to stand up and take the lead before our civil right to vote is also taken away from us. No more north south divide, we must unite and kick these pirates out of the country.

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Dame
    Love rating 27
    Dame said

    Who does represent our interests? I have always thought the ballot paper should carry the option 'None of the above'. That would prove a very interesting turn of events and is much better than just not turning out to vote which can be interpreted as those who don't care.

    Independents got absolutely no where in the London Mayoral elections, they just crowded out by the noise of the other 3 main parties. It is impossible at present to get into power at a national level unless you belong to one of the main three. The way to do it is is as was suggested in 'A Very British Coup', infiltrate from within!

    Report on 09 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    There is a lot of common sense running through this thread. I have said many times on here that we should separate ourselves from the traditional "left/right" politics because there is not a lot of difference between them. Certainly, their policies are different but their representations of the British Public is not. Corruption and self-interest is rife, just as it is in Europe.

    Tanni, mgbboy55 and Dame have made some excellent points above and it is worth going back and re-reading them. We DO need a government that represents the UK, that stops wasting OUR money on things that we can no longer afford (eg the EU, Arab wars).

    In my opinion, the capitalist society will work if we allow it to. Unsustainable banks should have gone bust. OK, savers would have lost out but it would be a lesson to all of us not to place our investing faith implicitly in such arrogant corporations in the future.

    We are told that the Bankers need big bonuses to keep them in this country. Well, if that is the best they can do, stop the bonuses and let them go to Brussels or somewhere else. On reflection of the last 5 or 6 years in banking, we would have been a lot better off if they had gone.

    People should also remember that central banks are a relatively new thing in the environment of economics. As someone said above, they are there to "protect" the bankers' interests and the government's interests.

    The bottom line in the UK is that we need to produce goods and sell them. We are a skilled and well-off country - let's use those skills and abilities and let's get rid of the hangers-on. We need a government that is going to represent the UK and my guess is that we will need businessmen to run it, not professional politicians!

    r.

    Report on 12 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3