A common practice of international investors is to take part in the so-called ‘carry trade’. This involves taking advantage of nominal interest rate differences between countries. For example, assume that interest rates are low in Japan and high in the USA. It is thus profitable to borrow yen in Japan at the low interest rate, exchange it into US dollars and deposit the money at the higher interest rate available in the USA. If there is no change in the exchange rate between the dollar and the yen, the investor makes a profit equal to the difference in the interest rates.
Rather than depositing the money in a US bank account, an alternative is to purchase US bonds or other assets in the USA, where the return is again higher than that in Japan.
If, however, interest-rate differentials narrow, there is the possibility of the carry trade ‘unwinding’. Not only may the carry trade prove unprofitable (or less so), but investors may withdraw their deposits and pay back the loans. This, as we shall, can have adverse consequences on exchange rates.
The problem of an unwinding of the carry trade is not new. It worsened the underlying problems of the financial crisis in 2008. The question today is whether history is about to repeat itself with a new round of unwinding of the carry trade threatening economic growth and recovery around the world.
We start by looking at what happened in 2008.
The carry trade and the 2008 financial crisis
Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, current account deficit countries, such as the UK, USA and Australia, typically had relatively high interest rates, while current account surplus countries such as Japan and Switzerland had relatively low ones. Figure 1 shows central bank interest rates from 2005 to the current day (click here for a PowerPoint).
The carry trade saw investors borrowing money in Japan and Switzerland, exchanging it on the foreign exchange market, with the currency then deposited in the UK, USA and Australia. Hundreds of billions worth of dollars were involved in this carry trade.
If, however, the higher interest rates in the UK and other deficit countries were simply to compensate investors for the risk of currency depreciation, then there would be no excessive inflow of finance. The benefit of the higher interest rate would be offset by a depreciating currency. But the carry trade had the effect of making deficit currencies appreciate, thereby further boosting the carry trade by speculation of further exchange rate rises.
Thus the currencies of deficit countries appreciated, making their goods less competitive and worsening their current account deficit. Between 1996 and 2006, the average current account deficits as a percentage of GDP for Australia, the USA and the UK were close to 4½, 4 and 2, respectively. Between January 1996 and December 2006, the broad-based real exchange rate index of the Australian dollar appreciated by 17%, of the US dollar by 4% and of sterling by some 23%.
Currencies of surplus countries depreciated, making their goods more competitive and further boosting their current account surpluses. For example, between 2004 and 2006 the average current account surpluses as a percentage of GDP for Japan and Switzerland were 3½ and 13, respectively. Their short-term interest rates averaged a mere 0.1% and 1.0% respectively (compared with 3.4%, 4.7% and 5.7% for the USA, the UK and Australia). Yet between January 2004 and December 2006, the real exchange rate index of the yen depreciated by 21%, while that of the Swiss franc depreciated by 6%.
With the credit crunch of 2007/8, the carry trade unwound. Much of the money deposited in the USA had been in highly risky assets, such as sub-prime mortgages. Investors scrambled to sell their assets in the USA, UK and the EU. Loans from Japan and Switzerland were repaid and these countries, seen as ‘safe havens’, attracted deposits. The currencies of deficit countries, such as the UK and USA, began to depreciate and those of surplus countries, such as Japan and Switzerland, began to appreciate. Between September 2007 and September 2008, the real exchange rate indices of the US dollar and sterling depreciated by 2% and 13% respectively; the yen and the Swiss franc appreciated by 3% and 2¾%.
This represented a ‘double whammy’ for Japanese exporters. Not only did its currency appreciate, making its exports more expensive in dollars, euros, pounds, etc., but the global recession saw consumers around the world buying less. As a result, the Japanese economy suffered the worst recession of the G7 economies.
The carry trade in recent months
Since 2016, there has been a re-emergence of the carry trade as the Fed began raising interest rates while the Bank of Japan kept rates at the ultra low level of –0.1% (see Figure 1). The process slowed down when the USA lowered interest rates in 2020 in response to the pandemic and fears of recession. But when the USA, the EU and the UK began raising rates at the beginning of 2022 in response to global inflationary pressures, while Japan kept its main rate at –0.1%, so the carry trade resumed in earnest. Cross-border loans originating in Japan (not all of it from the carry trade) had risen to ¥157tn ($1tn) by March 2024 – a rise of 21% from 2021.
The process boosted US stock markets and contributed to the dollar appreciating against the yen (see Figure 2: click here for a PowerPoint).
Although this depreciation of the yen helped Japanese exports, it also led to rising prices. Japanese inflation rose steadily throughout 2022. In the 12 months to January 2022 the inflation rate was 0.5% (having been negative from October 2020 to August 2021). By January 2023, the annual rate had risen to 4.3% – a rate not seen since 1981. The Bank of Japan was cautious about raising interest rates to suppress this inflation, however, for fear of damaging growth and causing the exchange rate to appreciate and thereby damaging exports. Indeed, quarterly economic growth fell from 1.3% in 2023 Q1 to –1.0% in 2023 Q3.
But then, with growth rebounding and the yen depreciating further, in March 2024 the Bank of Japan decided to raise its key rate from –0.1% to 0.1%. This initially had the effect of stabilising the exchange rate. But then with the yen depreciating further and inflation rising from 2.5% to 2.8% in May and staying at this level in June, the Bank of Japan increased the key rate again at the end of July – this time to 0.25% – and there were expectations that there would be another rise before the end of the year.
At the same time, there were expectations that the Fed would soon lower its main rate (the Federal Funds Rate) from its level of 5.33%. The ECB and the Bank of England had already begun lowering their main rates in response to lower inflation. The carry trade rapidly unwound. Investors sold US, EU and UK assets and began repaying yen loans.
The result was a rapid appreciation of the yen as Figure 3 shows (click here for a PowerPoint). Between 31 July (the date the Bank of Japan raised interest rates the second time) and 5 August, the dollar depreciated against the yen from ¥150.4 to ¥142.7. In other words, the value of 100 yen appreciated from $0.66 to $0.70 – an appreciation of the yen of 6.1%.
Fears about the unwinding of the carry trade led to falls in stock markets around the world. Not only were investors selling shares to pay back the loans, but fears of the continuing process put further downward pressure on shares. From 31 July to 5 August, the US S&P 500 fell by 6.1% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq by 8.0%.
As far as the Tokyo stock market was concerned, the appreciation of the yen sparked fears that the large Japanese export sector would be damaged. Investors rushed to sell shares. Between 31 July and 5 August, the Nikkei 225 (the main Japanese stock market index) fell by 19.5% – its biggest short-term fall ever (see Figure 4: click here for a PowerPoint).
Although the yen has since depreciated slightly (a rise in the yen/dollar rate) and stock markets have recovered somewhat, expectations of many investors are that the unwinding of the yen carry trade has some way to go. This could result in a further appreciation of the yen from current levels of around ¥100 = $0.67 to around $0.86 in a couple of years’ time.
There are also fears about the carry trade in the Chinese currency, the yuan. Some $500 billion of foreign currency holdings have been acquired with yuan since 2022. As with the Japanese carry trade, this has been encouraged by low Chinese interest rates and a depreciating yuan. Not only are Chinese companies investing abroad, but foreign companies operating in China have been using their yuan earnings from their Chinese operations to invest abroad rather than in China. The Chinese carry trade, however, has been restricted by the limited convertibility of the yuan. If the Chinese carry trade begins to unwind when the Chinese economy begins to recover and interest rates begin to rise, the effect will probably be more limited than with the yen.
Articles
- A popular trading strategy just blew up in investors’ faces
CNN, Allison Morrow (7/8/24)
- The big ‘carry trade’ unwind is far from over, strategists warn
CNBC, Sam Meredith (13/8/24)
- Unwinding of yen ‘carry trade’ still threatens markets, say analysts
Financial Times, Leo Lewis and David Keohane (7/8/24)
- The yen carry trade sell-off marks a step change in the business cycle
Financial Times, John Plender (10/8/24)
- Forbes Money Markets Global Markets React To The Japanese Yen Carry Trade Unwind
Forbes, Frank Holmes (12/8/24)
- 7 unwinding carry trades that crashed the markets
Alt21 (26/1/23)
- A carry crash also kicked off the global financial crisis 17 years ago — here’s why it’s unlikely to get as bad this time
The Conversation, Charles Read (9/8/24)
- What is the Chinese yuan carry trade and how is it different from the yen’s?
Reuters, Winni Zhou and Summer Zhen (13/8/24)
- Carry Trade That Blew Up Markets Is Attracting Hedge Funds Again
Yahoo Finance/Bloomberg, David Finnerty and Ruth Carson (16/8/24)
- Currency Carry Trades 101
Investopedia, Kathy Lien (9/8/24)
- Carry Trades Torpedoed The Market. They’re Still Everywhere.
Finimize, Stéphane Renevier (13/8/24)
Questions
- What factors drive the currency carry trade?
- Is the carry trade a form of arbitrage?
- Find out and explain what has happened to the Japanese yen since this blog was written.
- Find out and explain some other examples of carry trades.
- Why are expectations so important in determining the extent and timing of the unwinding of carry trades?
Sustainability has become one of the most pressing issues facing society. Patterns of human production and consumption have become unsustainable. On the environmental front, climate change, land-use change, biodiversity loss and depletion of natural resource are destabilising the Earth’s eco-system.
Furthermore, data on poverty, hunger and lack of healthcare show that many people live below minimum social standards. This has led to greater emphasis being placed on sustainable development: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (The Brundtland Report, 1987: Ch.2, para. 1).
The financial system has an important role to play in channelling capital in a more sustainable way. Since current models of finance do not consider the welfare of future generations in investment decisions, sustainable finance has been developed to analyse how investment and lending decisions can manage the trade-off inherent in sustainable development: sacrificing return today to enhance the welfare of future generations.
However, some commentators argue that such trade-offs are not required. They suggest that investors can ‘do well by doing good’. In this blog, I will use ‘green’ bonds (debt instruments which finance projects or activities with positive environmental and social impacts) to explain the economics underpinning sustainable finance and show that doing good has a price that sustainable investors need to be prepared to pay.
I will analyse why investors might not be doing so and point to changes which may be required to ensure financial markets channel capital in a way consistent with sustainable development.
The growth of sustainable finance
Sustainable finance has grown rapidly over the past decade as concerns about climate change have intensified. A significant element of this growth has been in global debt markets.
Figure 1 illustrates the rapid growth in the issuance of sustainability-linked debt instruments since 2012. While issuance fell in 2022 due to concerns about rising inflation and interest rates reducing the real return of fixed-income debt securities, it rebounded in 2023 and is on course for record levels in 2024. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Green bonds are an asset class within sustainability-linked debt. Such bonds focus on financing projects or activities with positive environmental and social impacts. They are typically classified as ‘use-of-proceeds’ or asset-linked bonds, meaning that the proceeds raised from their issuance are earmarked for green projects, such as renewable energy, clean transportation, and sustainable agriculture. Such bonds should be attractive to investors who want a financial return but also want to finance investments with a positive environmental and/or social impact.
One common complaint from commentators and investors is the ‘greenium’ – the price premium investors pay for green bonds over conventional ones. This premium reduces the borrowing costs of the issuers (the ‘counterparties’) compared to those of conventional counterparties. This produces a yield advantage for issuers of green bonds (price and yield have a negative relationship), reducing their borrowing costs compared to issuers of conventional bonds.
An analysis by Amundi in 2023 using data from Bloomberg estimated that the average difference in yield in developed markets was –2.2 basis points (–0.022 percentage points) and the average in emerging markets was –5.6 basis points (–0.056 percentage points). Commentators and investors suggest that the premium is a scarcity issue and once there are sufficient green bonds, the premium over non-sustainable bonds should disappear.
However, from an economics perspective, such interpretations of the greenium ignore some fundamentals of economic valuation and the incentives and penalties through which financial markets will help facilitate more sustainable development. Without the price premium, investors could buy sustainable debt at the same price as unsustainable debt, earn the same financial return (yield) but also achieve environmental and social benefits for future generations too. Re-read that sentence and if it sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is too good to be true.
‘There is no such thing as a free lunch’
In theory, markets are institutional arrangements where demand and supply decisions produce price signals which show where resources are used most productively. Financial markets involve the allocation of financial capital. Traditional economic models of finance ignore sustainability when appraising investment decisions around the allocation of capital. Consequently, such allocations do not tend to be consistent with sustainable development.
In contrast, economic models of sustainable finance do incorporate such impacts of investment decisions and they will be reflected in the valuation, and hence pricing, of financial instruments. Investors, responding to the pricing signals will reallocate capital in a more sustainable manner.
Let’s trace the process. In models of sustainable finance, financial instruments such as green bonds funding investments with positive environmental impacts (such as renewable energy) should be valued more, while instruments funding investments with negative environmental impacts (such as fossil fuels) should be valued less. The prices of the green bonds financing renewable energy projects should rise while the prices of conventional bonds financing fossil-fuel companies should fall.
As this happens, the yield on the green bonds falls, lowering the cost of capital for renewable-energy projects, while yields on the bonds financing fossil-fuel projects rise, ceteris paribus. As with any market, these differential prices act as signals as to where resources should be allocated. In this case, the signals should result in an allocation consistent with sustainable development.
The fundamental point in this economic valuation is that sustainable investors should accept a trade-off. They should pay a premium and receive a lower rate of financial return (yield) for green bonds compared to conventional ones. The difference in price (the greenium), and hence yield, represents the return investors are prepared to sacrifice to improve future generations’ welfare. Investors cannot expect to have the additional welfare benefit for future generations reflected in the return they receive today. That would be double counting. The benefit will accrue to future generations.
A neat way to trace the sacrifice sustainable investors are prepared to make in order to enhance the welfare of future generations is to plot the differences in yields between green bonds and their comparable conventional counterparts. The German government has issued a series of ‘twin’ bonds in recent years. These twins are identical in every respect (coupon, face value, credit risk) except that the proceeds from one will be used for ‘green’ projects only.
Figure 2 shows the difference in yields on a ‘green bond’ and its conventional counterpart, both maturing on 15/8/2050, between June 2021 and July 2024. The yield on the green bond is lower – on average about 2.2 basis points (0.022 percentage points) over the period. This represents the sacrifice in financial return that investors are prepared to trade off for higher environmental and social welfare in the future. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
The yield spread fluctuates through time, reflecting changing perceptions of environmental concerns and hence the changing value that sustainable investors attach to future generations. The spread tends to widen when there are heightened environmental concerns and to narrow when such concerns are not in the news. For example, the spread on the twin German bonds reached a maximum of 0.045 percentage points in November 2021. This coincided with the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. The spread has narrowed significantly since early 2022 as rising interest rates and falling real rates of return on bonds in the near-term seem to have dominated investors’ concerns.
These data suggest that, rather than being too large, the greeniums are too small. The spreads suggest that markets in debt instruments do not seem to attach much value to future generations. The valuation, price and yield of green bonds are not significantly different from their conventional counterparts. This narrow gap indicates insufficient reward for better sustainability impact and little penalty for worse sustainability impact.
This pattern is repeated across financial markets and does not seem to be stimulating the necessary investment to achieve sustainable development. An estimate of the scale of the deficit in green financing is provided by Bloomberg NEF (2024). While global spending on the green energy transition reached $1.8 trillion in 2023, Bloomberg estimates that $4.8 trillion needs to be invested every year for the remainder of this decade if the world is to remain on track under the ‘net zero’ scenario. Investors do not seem to be prepared to accept the trade-off needed to provide the necessary funds.
Can financial markets deliver sustainable development?
Ultimately, the hope is that all financial instruments will be sustainable. In order to achieve that, access to finance would require all investors to incorporate the welfare of future generations in their investment decisions and accept sacrificing sufficient short-term financial return to ensure long-term sustainable development. Unfortunately, the pricing of green bonds suggests that investors are not prepared to accept the trade-off. This restricts the ability of financial markets to deliver an allocation of resources consistent with sustainable development.
There are several reasons why financial markets may not be valuing the welfare of future generations fully.
- Bounded rationality means that it is difficult for sustainable investors to assign precise values to future and distant benefits.
- There are no standardised sustainability metrics available. This produces great uncertainty in the valuation of future welfare.
- Investors also exhibit cognitive biases, which means they may not value the welfare of future generations properly. These include present bias (favouring immediate rewards) and hyperbolic discounting (valuing the near future more than the distant future).
- Economic models of financial valuation use discount rates to assess the value of future benefits. Higher discount rates reduce the perceived value of benefits occurring in the distant future. As a result, long-term impacts (such as environmental conservation) may be undervalued.
- There may be large numbers of investors who are only interested in financial returns and so do not consider the welfare of future generations in their investment decisions.
Consequently, investors need to be educated about the extent of trade-offs required to achieve the necessary investments in sustainable development. Furthermore, practical models which better reflect the welfare of future generations in investment decisions need to be employed. However, challenges persist in fully accounting for future generations and it may need regulatory frameworks to provide appropriate incentives for effective sustainable investment.
Articles
- The fallacy of ESG investing
Financial Times, Robert Armstrong (23/10/20)
- Energy Transition Investment Trends 2024: Executive Summary
BloombergNEF (30/1/24)
- ESG metrics trip up factor investors
Financial Times, Emma Boyde (1/11/21)
- Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development
United Nations, Gro Harlem Brundtland (chair) (20/3/87)
Who killed the ESG party?FT Film, Daniel Garrahan (17/7/24)
- Green bond issuance surges as investors hunt for yield
Financial Times, Lee Harris (19/6/24)
- Investing for long-term value creation
Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 9(4), Dirk Schoenmaker and Willem Schramade (19/6/19)
- Facts and Fantasies about the Green Bond Premium
Amundi working paper 102-2020, Mohamed Ben Slimane, Dany Da Fonseca and Vivek Mahtani (December 2020)
- Climate change and growth
Industrial and Corporate Change, 32 (2), 2023, Nicholas Stern and Joseph E Stiglitz (30/7/24)
Report
Data
Questions
- Using demand and supply analysis, illustrate and explain the impact of sustainable investing on the markets for (i) green bonds and (ii) conventional bonds. Highlight how this should produce an allocation of finance capital consistent with sustainable development.
- Research the yields on the twin bonds issued by Germany since this blog was published. Can you identify any association between heightened environmental concerns and the spread between the ‘green’ and conventional bond?
- Analyse the issues which prevent financial markets from producing the pricing signals which produce an allocation of resources consistent with sustainable development.
- Research some potential regulatory policies which may provide appropriate incentives for sustainable investment.
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been investigating road fuel pricing in the UK. In July 2022, it launched a study into the development of the road-fuel market over recent years. The final report of this study was published in July 2023 and covered the refining, wholesale and retail elements of the market.
In the retail part of the market, the CMA noted some potential causes for concern: retailer fuel margins had increased; there were geographical variations in pricing; filling stations with fewer competitors tended to charge higher prices; retail prices tended to rise rapidly when oil prices increased but fell slowly when oil prices fell (known as ‘rocket and feather’ pricing patterns); motorway service stations charged considerably higher prices than supermarkets or other filling stations.
In response to these findings, the CMA has been publishing an interim report every four months. These reports give average pump prices and margins. They also give relative average pump prices between different types of retailer, and between each of the supermarkets.
The latest interim report was published on 26 July 2024. It reiterated the finding of the 2023 report that the fuel market has become less competitive since 2019. What is more, it continues to be so. In particular, the range of retail prices and the level of retail margins remain high compared to historic levels. The interim report estimates that ‘the increase in retailers’ fuel margins compared to 2019 resulted in increased fuel costs for drivers in 2023 of over £1.6bn’.
Price leadership
Road fuel retailing is an oligopoly, with the major companies being the big supermarkets, the retail arms of oil companies (such as Shell, BP, Esso and Texaco, operating their own filling stations) and a few large specialist companies, such as the Motor Fuel Group (MFG), the EG Group and Rontec, whose filling stations sell one or other of the main brands. But although it is an oligopoly producing a homogeneous product, it is not a cartel (unlike OPEC). Nevertheless, there has been a high degree of tacit collusion in the market with price competition limited to certain rules of behaviour in particular locations. A familiar one is setting prices ending in .9 of a penny (e.g. 142.9p), with the acceptance by competitors that Applegreen will set it ending at .8 of a penny and Asda at .7 of a penny.
One of the main forms of tacit collusion in areas where there are several filling stations is that of price leadership. Asda, and in some areas Morrisons, have been price leaders, setting the lowest price for that area, with other filling stations setting the price at or slightly above that level (e.g. 0.2p, 1.2p or 2.2p higher). Indeed, other major retailers, such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Esso and Shell took a relatively passive approach to pricing, unwilling to undercut Asda and accept lower profit margins.
Things changed after 2019. Asda chose to increase its profit margins. In 2022 it did this by reducing prices more slowly than would previously have been the case as wholesale prices fell. In other words, it used price feathering. Other big retailers might have been expected to use the opportunity to undercut Asda. Instead, they decided to increase their own margins by following a similar pricing path. The result was a 6 pence per litre increase in the average supermarket fuel margin from 2019 to 2022.
More recently, Asda has increased its margins more than other major retailers, making it no longer the price leader. The effect has been to put less pressure on other retailers to trim their now higher profit margins.
Remedies
The 2023 CMA report made two specific recommendations to deal with this rise in profit margins.
The first was that the CMA should be given a statutory monitoring function over the fuel market to ‘hold the industry to account’. In May this year, legislation was passed to this effect. This requires the CMA to monitor the industry and report anti-competitive practice to the government.
The second was to introduce a new statutory ‘open data real-time fuel finder scheme’. This would give motorists access to live, station-by-station fuel prices.
Several major retailers already contribute to a voluntary price data sharing scheme. However, this covers only around 40% of UK forecourts. According to the CMA, it ‘falls well short of the comprehensive, real-time, station-by station data needed to empower motorists and drive competition’. The CMA has thus called on the new Labour government to introduce legislation to make its recommended system compulsory. This, it is hoped, would make the retail fuel market much more competitive by improving consumer information about prices at alternative filling stations in their area.
Articles
CMA reports
Questions
- What forms can tacit collusion take?
- Why are fuel prices at motorway service stations so much higher than in towns? What is the relevance of the price elasticity of demand to the answer?
- What are the main findings of the CMA’s July 2024 Interim Report
- What is meant by rocket and feather pricing?
- What recommendations does the CMA make for increasing competition in the retail road fuel market?
- Find out how competitive retail fuel pricing is in two other developed countries. Why are they more or less competitive than the UK?
When I worked as a professional economist at HM Treasury and later the Council of Mortgage Lenders (now part of UK Finance), I would regularly brief on the state of the affordability of housing, with a particular focus on the owner-occupied market. That was back in the late 1990s. Fast forward a quarter of a century and I recognise not only how much I have aged but also how deep-rooted and long-standing the affordability problem is.
It is perhaps not surprising that in her first speech as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, referenced directly the housing market and the need to address supply-side issues. She has set a target of one and a half million new homes built over the next five years.
It is therefore timely to revisit the trends in house prices across the UK. By applying the distinction between nominal and real values we get a very clear sense of the deteriorating affordability of housing.
Nominal house price patterns
The average UK actual or nominal house price in April 2024 was £281 000. As Chart 1 shows, this masks considerable differences across the UK. In England the average price was £298 000 (105 per cent of the UK average), though this is heavily skewed by London where the average price was £502 000 (178 per cent of the UK average). Meanwhile, in Scotland it was £190 000 (68 per cent of the UK average), in Wales £208 000 (74 per cent of the UK average) and in Northern Ireland it was £178 000 (74 per cent of the UK average). (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
A simple comparison of the average house price in April 2024 with January 1970 reveals a 72-fold increase in the UK, an 80-fold increase in England, including a 101-fold increase in London, a 65-fold increase in Wales, a 59-fold increase in Scotland and a 45-fold increase in Northern Ireland. Whilst these figures are sensitive to the particular period over which we choose to measure, there is little doubting that upward long-term trend in house prices.
Whilst nominal prices trend upwards over time, the short-term rates of increase are highly volatile. This can be seen from an inspection of Chart 2, which shows the annual rates of increase across the four nations of the UK, as well as for London. This is evidence of frequent imbalances between the flows of property on to the market to sell (instructions to sell) and the number of people looking to buy (instructions to buy). An increase in instructions to buy (housing demand) relative to those to sell (housing supply) puts upward pressure on prices; an increase in the number of instructions to sell (housing supply) relative to those to buy (housing demand) puts downward pressure on prices. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
Chart 2 nicely captures the recent slowdown in the housing market. The inflationary shock that began to take hold in 2021 led the Bank of England to raise Bank Rate on 15 occasions – from 0.25 per cent in December 2021 to 5.25 per cent in August 2023 (which remains the rate at the time of writing, but could be cut at the next Bank of England meeting on 1 August 2024). Higher Bank Rate has pushed up mortgage rates, which has contributed to an easing of housing demand. Demand has also been dampened by weak growth in the economy, higher costs of living and fragile consumer confidence. The result has been a sharp fall in the rate of house price inflation, with many parts of the UK experiencing house price deflation. As the chart shows, the rate of deflation has been particularly pronounced and protracted in London, with house prices in January 2024 falling at an annual rate of 5.1 per cent.
Real house price patterns
Despite the volatility in house prices, such as those of recent times, the longer-term trend in house prices is nonetheless upwards. To understand just how rapidly UK house prices have grown over time, we now consider their growth relative to consumer prices. This allows us to analyse the degree to which there has been an increase in real house prices.
To calculate real or inflation-adjusted house prices, we deflate nominal house prices by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI). Chart 3 shows the resulting real house prices series across the UK as if consumer prices were fixed at 2015 levels.
The key message here is that over the longer-term we cannot fully explain the growth in actual (nominal) house prices by the growth in consumer prices. Rather, we see real increases in house prices. Inflation-adjusted UK house prices were 5.3 times higher in April 2024 compared to January 1970. For England the figure was 5.9 times, Wales 4.8 times, Scotland 4.3 times and for Northern Ireland 3.3 times. In London, inflation-adjusted house prices were 7.4 times higher. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
As we saw with nominal house prices, the estimated long-term increase in real house prices is naturally sensitive to the period over which we measure. For example, the average real UK house price in August 2022 was 5.8 times higher than in January 1970, while in London they were 8.7 times higher. But the message is clear – the long-term increase is not merely nominal, reflecting increasing prices generally, but is real, reflecting pressures that are increasing house prices relative to general price levels.
Chart 4 shows how the volatility in house prices continues to be evident when house prices are adjusted for changes in consumer prices. The UK’s annual rate of real house price inflation was as high as 40 per in January 1973; on the other hand, in June 1975 inflation-adjusted house prices were 15 per cent lower than a year earlier. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
Over the period from January 1970 to April 2024, the average annual rate of real house price inflation in the UK was 3.2 per cent. Hence house prices have, on average, grown at an annual rate of consumer price inflation plus 3.2 per cent. For the four nations, real house price inflation has averaged 3.8 per cent in England, 3.4 per cent in Wales, 3.0 per cent in Scotland and 2.9 per cent in Northern Ireland. Further, the average rate of real house price inflation in London since January 1970 has been 4.5 per cent. By contrast, that for the East and West Midlands has been 3.7 and 3.5 per cent respectively. The important point here is that the pace with which inflation-adjusted house prices have risen helps to contextualise the extent of the problem of housing affordability – a problem that only worsens over time when real incomes do not keep pace.
House building
The newly elected Labour government has made the argument that it needs to prioritise planning reform as an engine for economic growth. While this ambition extends beyond housing, the scale of the supply-side problem facing the housing market can be seen in Chart 5. The chart shows the number of housing completions in the UK since 1950 by type of tenure. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
The chart shows the extent of the growth in house building in the UK that occurred from the 1950s and into the 1970s. Over these three decades the typical number of new properties completed each year was around 320 000 or 6 per thousand of the population. The peak of house building was in the late 1960s when completions exceeded 400 000 per year or over 7.5 per thousand of the population. It is also noticeable how new local authority housing (‘council houses’) played a much larger role in the overall housing mix.
Since 1980, the average number of housing completions each year has dropped to 191 000 or 3.2 per thousand of the population. If we consider the period since 2000, the number of completions has averaged only 181 000 per year or 2.9 per thousand of the population. While it is important to understand the pressures on housing demand in any assessment of the growth in real house prices, the lack of growth in supply is also a key factor. The fact that less than half the number of properties per thousand people are now being built compared with half a century or so ago is an incredibly stark statistic. It is a major determinant of the deterioration of housing affordability.
However, there are important considerations around the protection of the natural environment that need to be considered too. It will therefore be interesting to see how the reforms to planning develop and what their impact will be on house prices and their affordability.
Articles
- Rachel Reeves requests urgent assessment of spending inheritance
The Guardian, Larry Elliott (8/7/24)
- Reeves to bring back housebuilding targets
BBC News, Faisal Islam and Daniel Thomas (8/7/24)
- UK Chancellor Reeves Vows to Fix Broken Planning System for Housebuilding
Bloomberg UK, Tom Rees, Damian Shepherd, and Joe Mayes (8/7/24)
- What to expect for house prices for the rest of 2024
i News, Callum Mason (10/7/24)
- UK house prices still unaffordable for many people, says Nationwide
The Guardian, Richard Partington (1/7/24)
- House prices still unaffordable for the average earner despite wage rises – Nationwide
Sky News, Sarah Taaffe-Maguire (1/7/24)
- Labour cannot build 1.5m homes without cash for affordable housing, providers say
The Guardian, Jack Simpson (12/7/24)
Statistics
Questions
- Explain the difference between a rise in the rate of house price inflation a rise in the level of house prices.
- Explain the difference between nominal and real house prices.
- If nominal house prices rise can real house price fall? Explain your answer.
- What do you understand by the terms instructions to buy and instructions to sell?
- What factors are likely to affect the levels of instructions to buy and instructions to sell?
- How does the balance between instructions to buy and instructions to sell affect house prices?
- How can we differentiate between different housing markets? Illustrate your answer with examples.
- What metrics could be used to measure the affordability of housing?
- Discuss the argument that the deterioration of housing affordability is the result of market failure.
In the third of our series on the distinction between nominal and real values we show its importance when analysing retail sales data. In the UK, such data are available from the Office for National Statistics. This blog revisits an earlier one, Nominal and real retail sales figures: interpreting the data, written in October 2023. We find that inflation-adjusted retail sales data reveal some stark patterns in the sector. They help contextualise some of the challenges faced by high streets up and down the UK.
The Retail Sales Index
Retail sales relate to spending on items such as food, clothing, footwear and household goods. They involve sales by retailers directly to final consumers, whether in store or online. Spending on services such as holidays, air fares and train tickets, insurance, banking, hotels and restaurants are not included, as are sales of motor vehicles. The Retail Sales Index for Great Britain is based on a monthly survey of around 5000 retailers across England, Scotland and Wales and is thought to capture around three-quarters of turnover in the retail industry.
Estimates of retail sales are published in index form. There are two indices published by the ONS: a value and volume measure. The value index reflects the total turnover of business, while the volume index adjusts the value index for price changes. Hence, the value estimates are nominal, while the volume estimates are real. The key point here is that the nominal estimates reflect both price and volume changes, whereas the real estimates adjust for price movements to capture only volume changes.
The headline ONS figures for May 2024 showed a rise by 2.9 per cent in the volume of retail sales, following a 1.8 per cent fall in April. In value terms, May saw a 3.3 per cent rise in retail sales following a 2.3 fall in March. Monthly changes can be quite volatile, even after seasonal adjustment, and sensitive to peculiar factors. For example, the poor weather in April 2024 helped to depress retail spending. It is, therefore, sensible to take a longer-term view when looking for clearer patterns in spending behaviour.
Growth of retail sales
Chart 1 plots the monthly value and volume of retail sales in Great Britain since 1996. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart). In value terms, monthly spending in the retail sector has increased by 169 per cent since January 1996, whereas in volume terms, spending has increased by 77 per cent. Another way of thinking about this is in terms of the average annual rate of increase. This shows that the value of spending has risen at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent while the volume of spending has risen at an annual rate of 2.0 per cent. This difference is to be expected in the presence of rising prices, since nominal growth, as we have just noted, reflects both price and volume changes.
Chart 1 helps to identify two periods where the volume of retail spending ceased to grow. The first of these is following the global financial crisis of the late 2000s. The period from 2008 to 2013 saw the volume of retail sales stagnate and flatline, with a recovery in volumes only really starting to take hold in 2014. Yet in nominal terms retail sales grew by around 14 per cent.
The second of the two periods is from 2021. Chart 2 helps to demonstrates the extent of the struggles of the retail sector in this period. It shows a significant divergence between the volume and value of retail sales. Indeed, between April 2021 and October 2023, while the value of retail sales increased by 8.0 per cent the volume of retail sales fell by 11.0 per cent.
The recent value-volume divergence reflects the inflation shock that began to emerge in 2021. This saw consumer prices, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), rise across 2022 and 2023 by 9.1 per cent and 7.3 per cent respectively, with the annual rate of CPI inflation hitting 11.1 per cent in October 2022. Hence, while inflation was a drag on the volume of spending it nonetheless meant that the value of spending continued to rise. Once more this demonstrates why understanding the distinction between nominal and real is important. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart).
To illustrate the longer-term trend in the volume of retail spending alongside its volatility, Chart 3 plots yearly retail sales volumes and also their percentage change on the previous year.
The chart nicely captures the prolonged halt to retail sales growth following the global financial crisis, the fluctuations caused by COVID and then the sharp falls in the volume of retail spending in 2022 and 2023 as the effects of the inflationary shock on peoples’ finances bit sharply. This cost-of-living crisis significantly affected many people’s disposable income. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart).
Categories of retail sales
We conclude by considering categories of retail spending. Chart 4 shows volumes of retail sales by four broad categories since 1996. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart). These are food stores, predominantly non-food stores, non-store retail and automotive fuel (i.e. sales of petrol and diesel “at the pumps”).
Whilst all categories have seen an increase in their spending volumes over the period as a whole, there are stark differences in this rate of growth. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most rapid growth is in non-store retail. This includes online retailing, as well as market stalls and catalogues.
The volume of retail spending in the non-store sector has grown at an average annual rate over this period of 6.3 per cent, compared with 2.6 per cent for non-food stores, 1.2 per cent for predominantly food stores and 1.0 per cent for automotive fuels. The growth of non-store retail has been even more rapid since 2010, when the average annual rate of growth in the volume of purchases has been 10.2 per cent, compared to 1.8 per cent for non-food stores, 1.0 per cent for automotive fuels and zero growth for food stores.
If we focus on the most recent patterns in the categories of retail sales, we see that the monthly volume of spending in all categories except non-store retail is now lower than the average in 2019. Specifically, when compared to 2019 levels, the volume of spending in non-food stores in May 2024 was 2.6 per cent lower, while that in food stores was 4.4 per cent lower, and the volume of spending on automotive fuels was 10.8 per cent lower. In contrast, spending in non-store retail was 21.2 per cent higher. Yet this is not to imply that this sector has been immune to the pressures faced by their high-street counterparts. Although it is difficult to disentangle fully the effects of the pandemic and lockdowns on non-store retail sales data, the downward trajectory in the volume of retail sales in the sector that occurred as the economy ‘reopened’ in 2021 and 2022 continued into 2023 when purchases fell by 3.5 per cent.
Final thoughts
The retail sector is an incredibly important part of the economy. A recent research briefing from the House of Commons Library reports that there were 2.7 million jobs in the UK retail sector in 2022, equivalent to 8.6 per cent of the country’s jobs with 314 040 retail businesses as of January 2023. Yet the importance of the retail sector cannot be captured by these statistics alone. Some would argue that the very fabric and wellbeing of our towns and cities is affected by the wellbeing of the sector and, importantly, by structural changes that affect how people interact with retail.
Articles
Research Briefing
Statistical bulletin
Data
Questions
- Which of the following is/are not counted in the UK retail sales data: (i) purchase of furniture from a department store; (ii) weekly grocery shop online; (iii) a stay at a hotel on holiday; (iv) a meal at your favourite café or restaurant?
- Why does an increase in the value of retail sales not necessarily mean that their volume has increased?
- In the presence of deflation, which will be higher: nominal or real growth rates?
- Discuss the factors that could explain the patterns in the volume of spending observed in the different categories of retail sales in Chart 4.
- Discuss what types of retail products might be more or less sensitive to changes in the macroeconomic environment.
- Conduct a survey of recent media reports to prepare a briefing discussing examples of retailers who have struggled or thrived in the recent economic environment.
- What do you understand by the concepts of ‘consumer confidence’ and ‘economic uncertainty’? How might these affect the volume of retail spending?
- Discuss the proposition that the retail sales data cast doubt on whether people are ‘forward-looking consumption smoothers’.