Cash rate of 5 per cent this time next year

The first full-employment recession
by Alan Kohler

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ployment-recession-H6SB5?OpenDocument&src=kgb

In just one week, money markets have gone from pricing in a rate increase to a 70 per cent chance of a cut in September. It has been the most dramatic shift in market sentiment in nearly a decade.

Terry McCrann, writing in the Murdoch tabloids, said last week that a rate cut in September is now “certain” – perhaps even by 0.5 per cent. That would be justified and prudent, in my view, but it would be an amazing event if “rear-view” inflation and unemployment were both still between 4 and 4.5 per cent.

On the other hand, if the Reserve Bank is still targeting the unemployment rate and worrying that labour market tightness will lead to persistent inflation, it will soon have to stop it.

The workplace has changed completely since the last recession – especially in retailing. These days many retail workers don’t have jobs; they have shifts. When business is slow they get fewer shifts. They are still officially employed, but they make a lot less money.

The same goes for Australia’s army of contractors and café operators.

Starbucks’ announcement last month that it is closing 61 of its 84 Australian stores is a sign of things to come for cafes. But it’s not just closures that will be the problem. As coffee consumption falls, café incomes will be crimped, staff will get fewer shifts and owners will have to cut back spending elsewhere.

And while the lower end of the workplace is having their shifts cut back, the top end is copping bonus shrinkage.

Those whose bonuses are tied to share prices are already in trouble; those who have got used to nice annual bonuses based on sales and profit growth have got a pay cut coming.

And the other big change since the last recession is the level of aggregate household debt.

At the individual level this means that many people with variable incomes – contractors, casual retail workers, café owners, executives on low bases and high bonuses – have geared themselves to peak incomes because they thought it would last forever (or else they didn’t really think about it).

As those incomes fall, even though they still have a job, desperation will set in. The cutback in non-essential spending from the new working poor will be more dramatic than we have ever seen.

As a result we could be in for the first full employment recession in history as demand and output contract while everyone, apparently, still has a job.

This will be an incredibly challenging time for RBA governor Glenn Stevens and his board and will require great flexibility.

The first sign of that flexibility will probably come with tomorrow’s statement accompanying the decision not to change rates.

Will the first cut happen in September? Maybe, but not certainly.

In my view the cash rate will need to be around 5 per cent this time next year, possibly in the 4s, so the governor will need to get started soon if he is not to have rates too tight during a recession and so worsen it.
 
Hi there ST,

No way will there be a rate cut yet. The RBA will keep the consumer sentiment down for a bit longer just to make sure we understand the consequences.

As far as unemployment is concerned, I think it is alot worse than recent figures have indicated. Not only will we see a drop in wages at the top but job consolidation. (1 employee for half the price of 2 with a new job title.)

More interesting times ahead.:)

Regards Jo
 
I can't imagine the RBA dropping that fast without a spike in unemployment or some massive downturn in a major sector of the economy. Certainly not while inflation is still on their radar. I'd expect a slow, gradual easing at best.
 
No way will there be a rate cut yet. The RBA will keep the consumer sentiment down for a bit longer just to make sure we understand the consequences.

Agreed. It's taken a lot of effort to get this message through, and I don't think they'll let it evaporate at the first negative effects.
 
Those whose bonuses are tied to share prices are already in trouble; those who have got used to nice annual bonuses based on sales and profit growth have got a pay cut coming.

I'm just trying to think of when was the last time you ever saw an exec of a bank not get a bonus... hmmm
 
I'm just trying to think of when was the last time you ever saw an exec of a bank not get a bonus... hmmm

Let me tell you a story about an ASX listed company a few years ago.

What happened there was this rainmaker of a vice president that pulled in $160 million worth of new business in 18 months. He single handedly doubled revenue of the division in that time. And he was paid mind blowing amounts of money. And then he suddenly quit and moved on.

About 3 months later the collective penny dropped. Every deal that he had cut was an absolute dog through and through. He had gotten the deals by underquoting and overpromising. The company was up for hundreds of millions in losses. The news slowly leaked out and the stock price started taking on water and sinking on the ASX.

The CEO then announced there would be no bonuses because the business was performing poorly (the same CEO that had let the VP run wild). The majority of the most experienced and smartest leaders then quit - they couldnt take the double whammy of being stuck with deals on impossible terms and being punished for someone else's mistakes. The company lost something like 80% of its core leaders and was stuck with bad deals and non-performing staff. The company reputation took another hit.

Eventually the board fired the CEO and brought in a salvage team at great expense. The publicly listed company is still with us and is finally recovering - but it was touch and go at the time.

The morale of the story is this:

When the company is making tons of "money" may not be the right time to award bonuses.

When the company is losing tons of money - may actually be the most important time to be awarding bonuses.
 
Let me tell you a story about an ASX listed company a few years ago.

What happened there was this rainmaker of a vice president that pulled in $160 million worth of new business in 18 months. He single handedly doubled revenue of the division in that time. And he was paid mind blowing amounts of money. And then he suddenly quit and moved on.

About 3 months later the collective penny dropped. Every deal that he had cut was an absolute dog through and through. He had gotten the deals by underquoting and overpromising. The company was up for hundreds of millions in losses. The news slowly leaked out and the stock price started taking on water and sinking on the ASX.

The CEO then announced there would be no bonuses because the business was performing poorly (the same CEO that had let the VP run wild). The majority of the most experienced and smartest leaders then quit - they couldnt take the double whammy of being stuck with deals on impossible terms and being punished for someone else's mistakes. The company lost something like 80% of its core leaders and was stuck with bad deals and non-performing staff. The company reputation took another hit.

Eventually the board fired the CEO and brought in a salvage team at great expense. The publicly listed company is still with us and is finally recovering - but it was touch and go at the time.

The morale of the story is this:

When the company is making tons of "money" may not be the right time to award bonuses.

When the company is losing tons of money - may actually be the most important time to be awarding bonuses.


So who is the company???????
 
What's even worse is companies often continue to keep paying the execs ridiculously high "bonuses" even after they have copped significant losses.

Just goes to show that high incomes doesn't necessarily equal financial intelligence.

Amazingly, squillions of punters keep lining up with their hard earned to get a share in that.
 
Agreed. It's taken a lot of effort to get this message through, and I don't think they'll let it evaporate at the first negative effects.

Also agreed, but, negative sentiment has built quite quickly over the last month or so. If it continues to grow at the current rate, I don't think it will be long before the cuts start. I hope it doesn't happen (the growing negative sentiment).

Just goes to show that high incomes doesn't necessarily equal financial intelligence.

Yep. In many cases it seems to be more of an ability to look the part and speak the part (which means being good with words (and passion) such that you sound like your competent.....).
 
We (media, public) tend to place considerable weight to the latest piece of news or information about the economy and discount information that i still relevant but not as new.

Yes, the economy is slowing, retail spending down, job vacancies down etc, but this is the exact scenario the RBA was intending to achieve. So at the first few signs of this, I can't see why the RBA would loosen the noose.

We are all now so accustomed to solid economic growth, strong employment, that I think many of us have lost or in some cases, never experienced a slow if not stagnant economy. This seems to be spooking the cattle.
 
Buzz,

Agree. Interesting isn't it... I see the economy as doing exactly what the RBA wanted it to do. Headline inflation is still unnacceptably high, but the RBA looked past this to the lead indicators of job growth and retail spending to see the trend in future inflation.

I think Glenn Stevens will come out today and say something like: "The current interest rate settings continue to act to control inflation by slowing the economy as planned. If we see inflation continue to slow as anticipated then we expect that at some point in the future we will be able to loosen interest rates."

Until then, get used to it. The RBA wants higher unemployment and reduced discretionary spend. That is why they set rates high. All you're seeing now is exactly what they set out to achieve. The media is painting the picture that they went one or two lifts too far, but I don't buy it. Rates are just about right to reign in inflation and will remain there for a tad longer until the RBA is certain inflation is moving in the right direction. That is why I stand by my November rate cut of 25bp call. Time will tell, and anything earlier is all upside.

Cheers,
Michael
 
I must admit that up until very recently I thought there may have been another .25% rise left in the current year, but have revised that opinion in the last few weeks. Personally, I'd be surprised if they cut rates this year.
 
Agreed. It's taken a lot of effort to get this message through, and I don't think they'll let it evaporate at the first negative effects.

But has it gotten through?

I can't see much changing when joints like Harvey Norman are still offering 2,000 years interest free.

I reckon the RBA will hold rates, until the end of the year, then maybe a little drop, but the Banks won't pass it on.
 
But has it gotten through?

I can't see much changing when joints like Harvey Norman are still offering 2,000 years interest free.

I reckon the RBA will hold rates, until the end of the year, then maybe a little drop, but the Banks won't pass it on.
Hi LAA,

My take on it is that Harvey Norman and others are offering extended credit terms to try and entice buyers as all of their retail sales have dried up. They're suffering and you'll start to see the impact in their earnings reports. It might have a little bit of a lag to it, in that the reduced spend probably only really started happening in the last few months, so recent reports are not representative of future earnings potential.

Just my take, no science to it. I certainly wouldn't be investing in consumer retail as a segment at the moment though.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rates-home-prices-to-fall/2008/08/04/1217701950099.html

SMH said:
Roughly a quarter of executives expect to have fewer staff in the coming three months than they did a year ago. Just one in 10 intend to hire more.

The industries most exposed to the downturn in consumer spending - retailers and manufacturers of non-durable goods such as food - are the most pessimistic.
Cheers,
Michael
 
Hi LAA,

My take on it is that Harvey Norman and others are offering extended credit terms to try and entice buyers as all of their retail sales have dried up. They're suffering and you'll start to see the impact in their earnings reports. It might have a little bit of a lag to it, in that the reduced spend probably only really started happening in the last few months, so recent reports are not representative of future earnings potential.

Just my take, no science to it. I certainly wouldn't be investing in consumer retail as a segment at the moment though.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rates-home-prices-to-fall/2008/08/04/1217701950099.html

Cheers,
Michael

Sounds about right. I've heard they want to flog off as many TVs etc as part of the build up to the Olympics, because they know aside from Christmas there won't be many chances to sell as much merchandise over the next year.
 
Hi LAA,

My take on it is that Harvey Norman and others are offering extended credit terms to try and entice buyers as all of their retail sales have dried up. They're suffering and you'll start to see the impact in their earnings reports. It might have a little bit of a lag to it, in that the reduced spend probably only really started happening in the last few months, so recent reports are not representative of future earnings potential.

Just my take, no science to it. I certainly wouldn't be investing in consumer retail as a segment at the moment though.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rates-home-prices-to-fall/2008/08/04/1217701950099.html

Cheers,
Michael


No worries there; wasn't thinking of the investment angle - I was thinking from the consumerism angle.

There doesn't seem to be any changing of people's mindset, other than they have less available to spend on other stuff now that the cost of running the V8 is goin' through the roof.
 
I think Glenn Stevens will come out today and say something like: "The current interest rate settings continue to act to control inflation by slowing the economy as planned. If we see inflation continue to slow as anticipated then we expect that at some point in the future we will be able to loosen interest rates."
OK, lets see how close I was... ;)

I thought he'd say: The current interest rate settings continue to act to control inflation by slowing the economy as planned. If we see inflation continue to slow as anticipated then we expect that at some point in the future we will be able to loosen interest rates.

He actually said: it is looking more likely that demand will remain subdued, and economic growth will be fairly slow, over the period ahead. The Bank's forecast remains that inflation will fall below 3% during 2010. Nonetheless, with demand slowing, the Board's view is that scope to move towards a less restrictive stance of monetary policy in the period ahead is increasing.

Pretty close! The only difference is that he is putting 2010 out there as his horizon for when inflation will come under control, and I said he'd keep it generic as "some point in the future", although he did conclude with "in the period ahead" which is still generic. I guess he needed to do that so people didn't get their hopes too high for an imminent cut. So long as inflation behaves as he hopes then by definition interest rates are at the correct level.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/rba-keeps-rates-on-hold-20080805-3qb7.html

I still reckon we could see a November cut though... :D

SMH said:
Financial markets are taking the view that the less restrictive stance is not far off. The Australian dollar shed about one-third of a US cent after the statement, dropping to as low as 92.45 US cents.

Interest rate futures, though, barely budged. Investors are betting there will be the equivalent of three rate cuts by 12 months' time, or 72 basis points, according to Credit Suisse. That measure, though, was little changed from the 69 basis-points expected prior to the 2.30pm announcement
Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
There doesn't seem to be any changing of people's mindset, other than they have less available to spend on other stuff now that the cost of running the V8 is goin' through the roof.

A lot of people have asked me if I'm getting rid of my V8 with fuel costs the way they are, but I have come to the conclusion that it's more expensive to buy another car, rather than just keep the one I've got!:)
 
Back
Top