A few weeks ago, I told you that the best place for your spare cash was an NS&I account. I was wrong. I thought you’d be getting 1% with a Direct Saver account – but you won’t. You’ll be getting 0.15%. My apologies to anyone who (as I did) wasted their time signing up. The only consolation I can offer (it isn’t much) is that in the not-too-distant future you might think 0.15% not that bad. The Bank of England is currently looking at how to impose negative interest rates in the UK. The Bank’s chief economist Andy Haldane insists there is no plan to actually do so – this is just about having it in the “monetary policy handbook”. We hope he is right. A mere five years ago, the very idea that instead of being paid to keep cash in the bank, you should be charged for doing so, would have been viewed as nuts. Now it is commonplace. Central banks reckon that the lower interest rates go, the easier it is to generate inflation. If we have to pay to save, we’ll spend instead. And if we are paid to borrow, we’ll borrow lots and spend that too.
The problem is that it doesn’t seem to work. Super-low and negative rates are miserable for savers. They make them want to save more, not less, in order to end up with enough to finance their futures. Save £1,000 a year at a rate of -2% for 20 years and you’ll have £16,950 at the end. Need £20,000? You’ll have to save more like £1,200 a year, or a total of £24,000. Nuts.
They are miserable for defined benefit pension funds, who calculate how healthy their assets look relative to their liabilities, based on bond yields. The lower yields go, just like the savers mentioned above, the more cash they have to shovel in. Imagine how that translates into the behaviour of the pension fund’s sponsoring firm. If your obligations to previous employees’ retirement payments seem infinite, how can you prioritise wages for today’s staff or indeed, investing in your business? Negative rates are also miserable for bank margins (and distasteful as their behaviour often is, we do need healthy banks) and for anyone who cares about inequality (asset bubbles are an inevitable consequence of more-than-free money). They also have so far proven useless at creating inflation.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Most people know intuitively that negative rates are wrong. Paper money has been around for about 1,000 years. No one, as far as we know, has ever offered negative nominal rates before. Given that and given what an awful policy tool they are (as shown by Japan and the eurozone) why the conversation in the UK now? It smacks of a classic example of “something-must-be-done-ism” – the act of introducing an obviously awful policy in a bid to be seen to be acting decisively, to solve a problem it may not be within your gift to solve (a bit perhaps like using endless lockdown to “eliminate” Covid).
Bad policy is a part of modern life. Negative nominal rates may or may not happen. Negative real rates (interest rates lower than inflation) are a given. If holding cash bears an actual cost, the opportunity cost of holding traditionally non-yielding assets disappears. So monitor the prices of art (even Banksy prices keep rising), brown furniture (it may finally be worth something), gold and silver. NS&I and the Bank of England might have let you down, but your grandmother’s tarnished teapot might be about to come into its own.
-
Burberry’s share price surges despite collapsing profits and job cuts announcementBurberry’s share price has soared, despite collapsing profits and around 1,700 jobs potentially set to be cut, as markets assess the turnaround plan’s effectiveness
-
A break from the excitement: three boring but good investment themes in Asia
-
'Nationalisation is not the answer'Opinion Labour's enthusiasm for nationalising steel was met with approval across the spectrum. Political consensus is a sign that thinking has been abandoned, says Max King
-
Why did the government take over British Steel – and was it a good idea?The government has stepped in to take control, not ownership, of British Steel, citing national security and other factors. But does that make sense?
-
'Rachel Reeves' plan to force pension funds into UK assets won't work'Opinion Hustling pension fund cash into British assets sounds like a good idea. It would be better to make Britain an attractive place to invest, says Matthew Lynn
-
What caused the Birmingham bin strike – and what does it mean for British businesses?The Birmingham bin strike is the fallout from an equal-pay claim brought by female cleaners. That bodes ill for the rest of British business
-
A new wealth tax is a terrible idea. The rich are already being hit by sneaky taxes – Merryn Somerset WebbOpinion Ideologues want to squeeze more tax out of the rich with a wealth tax. They’re already wrung dry, says Merryn Somerset Webb
-
Why are energy bills so expensive in the UK?Electricity bills in the UK are higher than in any comparable rich country. Some blame the net-zero zealotry of the government for that. What is really to blame for high energy bills?
-
Five years on: what did Covid cost us?We’re still counting the costs of the global coronavirus pandemic – and governments’ responses. What did we learn?
-
London can lure Brexit-fleeing banks back to UK – but the City must move quicklyOpinion Many banks fled to Paris in the wake of Brexit but are now in full-scale retreat. The City should move quickly to lure them back, says Matthew Lynn
