I was fortunate enough to attend the Institute of Directors breakfast where RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler was the guest speaker. He spent a lot of time focussing on the overvalued NZD and that keeping the OCR low is a an effort to weaken its value. He did mention that the RBNZ has intervened in the FX market by buying foreign currency with NZD – supply increases therefore value should drop. In assessing whether to intervene in the exchange market, the RBNZ apply four criteria.
1. Is the exchange rate at an exceptional level,
2. Whether its level is justifiable,
3. Is intervention consistent with monetary policy, and
4. Are market conditions conducive to intervention having an impact.
This last factor is especially important given the volume of trading in the Kiwi. In the most recent survey – April 2010 – by the Bank for International Settlements, the Kiwi was the tenth most traded currency in the world with daily turnover of spot and forward exchange transactions totaling around USD $27 billion.
“We can only hope to smooth the peaks off the exchange rate and diminish investor perceptions that the New Zealand dollar is a one-way bet, rather than attempt to influence the trend level of the Kiwi.” Graeme Wheeler – RBNZ Governor
See the graph below for the value of the NZD after his speech.
For many years after the Second World War most countries operated a system of fixed exchange rates. The external value of a currency was fixed in terms of the US$ and the value of the US$ itself was fixed in terms of gold. In effect, therefore, the values of the currencies were fixed in terms of gold. The ‘fixed’ rate was not absolutely rigid. The value of a currency was allowed to vary within a narrow band of 1 or 2% on each side of the ‘fixed’ rate or parity. For example, if the value of the NZ$ were fixed at NZ$1 = US$0.50, a permitted deviation of 2% would allow it to vary between NZ$1 = US$0.51 and NZ$1 = US$0.49. These limits are often described as ‘the ceiling’ and ‘the floor’. Central banks were responsible for maintaining the values of their currencies within the prescribed bands. They are able to do this by acting as buyers or sellers of the currency in the foreign exchange market. For this purpose each central bank must have a fund containing supplies of the home currency and foreign currencies.
The way in which the Reserve Bank of New Zealand can use its funds of currencies to influence the exchange rate can be explained by making use of the diagram below. Let us assume that the value of the NZ$ has been fixed at A and, initially, the market is in equilibrium at this exchange rate. The permitted band of fluctuation is PP1 and the value of the pound must be held within these limits. A large increase in imports now causes an increase in the supply of NZ$’s in the foreign exchange market. The supply curve moves from SS to S1S1 causing a surplus of NZ$’s at the ‘fixed’ rate (A). If no intervention takes place, the external value of the
NZ$ will fall to B which is below the permitted ‘floor’.
The Reserve Bank will be obliged to enter the market and buy NZ$. In doing so that will shift the demand curve to the right and raise the value of the NZ$ until it is once again within agreed limits. In the diagram below intervention by the Reserve Bank of NZ has raised the exchange rate to C.
When the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is buying NZ$’s, it will be using up its reserves of foreign currencies; when buying NZ$’s it exchanges foreign currencies for NZ$’s. ‘Supporting the NZ dollar’, that is, increasing the demand for NZ$’s, therefore leads to a fall in the nation’s foreign currency reserves. In the opposite situation where an increased demand for NZ$’s tends to lift the value of the NZ$ above the permitted ‘ceiling’, the central bank will hold down its value by selling NZ$’s. This will increase the supply of NZ$’s and lower the exchange rate. When the Reserve Bank is selling NZ$’s it will be increasing its holdings of foreign currencies.
The main argument for a fixed exchange rate is the same as that against a floating rate. A fixed rate removes a major cause for uncertainty in international transactions. Traders can quote prices which will be accepted with some degree of confidence; buyers know that they will not be affected by movements in the exchange rate. The risks associated with international trade are lessened and this should encourage more trade between nations and more international borrowing and lending.
In theory, an advantage of a floating exchange rate is that it will automatically correct any tendency for the balance of payments to move into surplus or deficit. The following sequence of events shows how this automatic correction is supposed to work.
• Assume the NZ balance of payments is initially in equilibrium.
• Assume now that export values remain unchanged, but an increased demand for $ tends to move the NZ B of P into a deficit.
• This increased demand for imports will increase the supply of dollars in the foreign exchange market.
• The external value of the dollar will fall and this will make exports cheaper and imports dearer.
• The changes in the relative prices of exports and imports will increase the volume of exports and reduce the volume of imports and the B of P will be brought back into equilibrium.
In practice it may not work out like this because the supplies of exports and imports may be slow to adjust to the price changes. For example, if the prices of exports fall, it may take considerable time before the increased quantities demanded can be supplied. There are also problems associated with the elasticities of demand for exports and imports. A 10% fall in the prices of exports will not increase the amount of foreign currency earned unless the quantities demanded increase by more than 10%. A further problem is that a depreciation of the pound increases import prices and, since New Zealand imports a large amount of raw materials and manufactures, this has the effect of raising the cost of living and the costs of production in many industries.
A disadvantage of the system of floating exchange rates is the fact that greatly increases the risks and uncertainties in international trade.
For example, an Auckland manufacturer of cotton cloth may be quoted a firm US$ price by his American supplier, payment due, say, in 3 months. He will still not be certain of the costs of his cotton because he does not know what the US$-NZ$ exchange rate will be when he comes to make payment.
If he is quoted US$500 for a bale of cotton and the exchange rate stands at:
NZ$1 = US$0.56, a bale of cotton will cost him NZ$892.86.
If, however, by the time he comes to make payment, the exchange rate has moved to:
NZ$1 = US$0.53, a bale of cotton will cost him NZ$943.40.
Speculators remove some of this uncertainty by operating a forward exchange market where they guarantee to supply foreign currency at some future date at a price agreed now.
A perfectly free market in foreign currency is not likely to be found in the real world. Even when currencies are said to be floating, governments tend to intervene in the market to smooth out undesirable fluctuations. The central bank (Reserve Bank in NZ) is responsible for this type of intervention and the way it operates is explained in the next section.
Advantages of a Strong Dollar
• A high NZ$ leads to lower import prices – this boosts the real living standards of consumers at least in the short run – for example an increase in the real purchasing power of NZ residents when traveling overseas
• When the NZ$ is strong, it is cheaper to import raw materials, components and capital inputs – good news for businesses that rely on imported components or who are wishing to increase their investment of new technology from overseas countries. A fall in import prices has the effect of causing an outward shift in the short run aggregate supply curve
• A strong exchange rate helps to control inflation because domestic producers face stiffer international competition from cheaper imports and will look to cut their costs accordingly. Cheaper prices of imported foodstuffs and beverages will also have a negative effect on the rate of consumer price inflation.
Disadvantages of a Strong Dollar
• Cheaper imports leads to rising import penetration and a larger trade deficit e.g. the increasing deficit in goods in the NZ balance of payments in 2011
• Exporters lose price competitiveness and market share – this can damage profits and employment in some sectors. Manufacturing industry suffered a steep recession in 2011 partly because of the continued strength of the NZ$, leading to many job losses and a sharp contraction in real capital investment spending and the lowest profit margins in manufacturing industry for over a decade
• If exports fall, this has a negative impact on economic growth. Some regions of the economy are affected by this more than others. The rural areas are affected by a strong dollar in that our produce becomes more expensive to overseas buyers.
Thanks to AS student Carlos McCoy for some information on Bitcoin. BITCOIN, the world’s “first decentralised digital currency”, was launched in 2009 and unlike traditional currencies, which are issued by central banks, Bitcoin has no central monetary authority. Instead it is underpinned by a peer-to-peer computer network made up of its users’ machines, akin to the networks that underpin BitTorrent, a file-sharing system, and Skype, an audio, video and chat service. However in today’s environment it does maintain a good store of value relatively speaking when you look at alternative currencies. Below is Max Keiser with some very good points.
There has been numerous mentions in the media about the need to reduce the strength of the NZ$. RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler outlined some of these in a recent speech. He identified the following policy responses:
1. Lowering Interest Rates
By lower interest rates you may reduce pressure on the exchange rate as long as the new rate is uncompetitive to those in other countries. However a one-off reduction in the interest rate which conflicts wtih the policy of the central bank’s inflation target could lead to expectations of a subsequent reversal. Examples of when it hasn’t work:
Australia – since the end of 2010 RBA cut its official cash rate by 1.75% – no significant impact on the AUS$.
Japan – on the other hand the Yen actually appreicated by over 30% between February 2007 and November 2012 when the interest rates was lowered to 0 – 0.1%.
Switzerland – The Swiss Franc appreciated by 20% between Jan 2010 – July 2011 despite interest rates being lowered between 0 – 0.75%
2. Intervening in the Foreign Exchange Market
The RBNZ have 4 criteria it uses to decide whether to intervene in the foreign exchange market.
1. Is the exchange rate at an exceptional level?
2. Is its value justified?
3. Is intervention justified with current monetary policy?
4. Are market conditions conducive to achieving the desired outcome?
Global exchange rate turnover is between US$4 -5 trillion per day and it is estimated that the NZ$ is the 10th most traded currency in the world. The RBNZ has indicated that it is prepared to intervene but can only attempt to smooth the peaks of the US$ – NZ$ exchange rate.
3. Quantitative Easing – printing money.
This has been adopted by the US central bank in response to teh global financial crisis. However New Zealand was not exposed to risky investments to the extent that other countries were. New Zealand’s challenges are different from those in the US, Euro zone etc. The printing of more money would put upward pressure on inflation, especially asset prices, and ultimately lead to higher interest rates.
4. Cap the exchange rate – the Swiss experience
The Swiss National Bank spent had some success in capping the Swiss franc to the Euro – SFr 1.2 – 1 euro. This woud be very risky for New Zealand – Swiss lost approximately
NZ$35bn in the process. New Zealand would need to intervene to the same extent and the interest rates would need to drop to 0% also. The capping would amount to quantitative easing which with 0% interest rates would be inflationary.
Graeme Wheeler finished up by saying:
The New Zealand economy currently faces an overvalued exchange rate and overheating house prices in parts of the country, especially Auckland. The Reserve Bank will be consulting with the financial sector next month on macro-prudential instruments. These instruments are designed to make the financial system more resilient and to reduce systemic risk by constraining excesses in the financial cycle. They can help to reduce volatile credit cycles and asset bubbles, including overheating housing markets, and support the stance of monetary policy, which could be helpful in alleviating pressure on the exchange rate at the margin.
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently addressed parliament stating that he plans to reverse the trend of issuing bonds to raise money but raise more in taxes. Japan cannot beat deflation and a strong currency (yen) if it adheres to the same policy of the past decade.
However his speech comes after the announcement of a $226.5bn stimulus package earlier in the year and this when Japan already has some serious debt issues – public debt that is almost three times the size of the Japanese economy.. He also wants the Bank of Japan to maintain an open-ended policy of quantitative easing (QE) and a doubling of the inflation target – 2%. Hopefully the fiscal stimulus package accompanied by more QE will drive down the price of the yen which will make Japanese exports more competitive. He stated his three arrows of economic policy:
1. Aggressive Monetary Easing
2. Flexible fiscal spending
3. A growth strategy that would induce private investment
Who knows if it will work but Shinzo Abe stated that it is worth the gamble.
The Economist first compared the price of a McDonald’s Big Mac in a number of countries in 1986. It regarded the long-established Big Mac as the perfect universal commodity now produced locally in sixty-six countries. If the prices of a Big Mac in several countries in local currencies were expressed in dollars using the exchange rate, then it would be possible to see whether exchange rates do equalize the prices of an identical commodity such as a Big Mac. It is evident that a dollar does not buy the same amount in each of these nine countries. The question arises as to whether the exchange rate between the dollar and the currency of each of the countries shown below moves in the long run to equalize prices of an identical product such as a Big Mac. Some economists think this is the case.
From the data currently the $NZ is undervalued by 1%. How does it work?
In January 2013 a Big Mac in the USA was US$4.37.
In New Zealand it was NZ$5.20
Therefore the exchange rate for Big Mac’s = 5.20/4.37 = US$1 = NZ$1.19
The actual exchange rate at the time was US$1 = NZ$1.20
Big Mac index is 1% undervalued.
But differences in the prices of hamburgers could exist in the real world for a number of reasons which could lead to apparent deviations from equilibrium exchange rate values. This relates to:
If beef production is subsidised in some countries more than others, then this could be expected to affect local prices of a Big Mac. There could also be differences in the tariffs on beef imports in different countries. Furthermore other costs regarding bread and salad could also impact on
Beef may not be a suitable commodity to compare relative prices where, for religious reasons say, it is not regarded as an appropriate main item of diet.
Click below to go to the interactive graph.
Economist Big Mac Index
The BNZ Markets Outlook looked at reasons why Graeme Wheeler, the RBNZ Governor, might keep a ‘steady as she goes’ attitude to Thursday’s OCR review. Below are some thoughts as to why he could be swayed to increase or decrease the OCR rate.
With all that said it is expected that Graeme Wheeler will leave the OCR unchanged at 2.5%.
With current central bank interest rates at very low levels there is concern that these policies have been fueling credit and asset price booms in some emerging economies. However, potentially there could be significant fallout of the unwinding of these booms on developed nations.
How do Capital Flows impact on an economy?
When you have long periods of loose monetary policy (including low interest rates), like that in the US 0-0.25% – since September 11 2001 the US Federal Reserve has implemented a near zero rate policy which is now expected to last until 2014. According to Stanford University Professor John Taylor this results in the following:
1 Investors look elsewhere to gain higher returns and buy foreign securities and
2 Low interest rates encourage overseas firms to borrow in US dollars rather than in their domestic currency – US branch offices of foreign banks raised over $645 billion to make loans in overseas countries.
This flow of money means that the strength of the local currency starts to appreciate as foreign firms exchange their borrowed US$ and for the domestic currency. With this appreciation, the central bank becomes concerned with the affect the higher currency is having on the exchange rate and therefore export competitiveness.
The above is a brief extract from an article published in this month’s econoMAX – click below to subscribe to econoMAX the online magazine of Tutor2u. Each month there are 8 articles of around 600 words on current economic issues.
A little over a decade ago the Australian dollar was being dismissed as the Pacific Peso but today some are referring to it as the Swiss Franc of the south. This is an indication of its safe-haven status as central banks worldwide start to diversify their reserves away from US dollars and Euros into Aussie dollars.
The IMF recently announced that they intend to make the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar Global Reserve Currencies. Both will be included in the COFER (Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves) surveys, which currently consists of the:
The IMF is asking member countries from next year to include the Australian and Canadian dollar in statistics supplied by reserve-holding nations on the make-up of their central banks’ foreign exchange reserves. In previous years the world has had just two reserve currencies:
1. Sterling up to 1914
2. US dollar since the WWI
Notice the drop in the Australian dollar during the start of the financial crisis but its strengthening since 2009. Australia is just one of only seven countries in the world with a AAA-rating from all three global credit ratings agencies – Moodys, Standard & Poors, and Fitch.
From reading the October 2012 IMF Fiscal Monitor I came across a page on the Swedish model of managing its public finances. Obviously the IMF see this as a good example for other economies to follow. At the bottom of the recession in 2009 the fiscal deficit in Sweden was only 1% of GDP and by 2011 it was at pre-crisis levels. The IMF publication identified four main points that other countries could learn from.
1. The building up of fiscal buffers during good times, together with credible fiscal institutions, provides room to maneuver during bad times.
Before the GFC Sweden enjoyed a fiscal surplus of 3.5 percent of GDP, compared with an average deficit of 1.1 percent of GDP among advanced economies. When the recession hit the government had enough fiscal space to allow automatic stabilizers to operate fully and to implement stimulus measures without jeopardizing fiscal sustainability. The fiscal balance went from a surplus of 3.5 percent of GDP in 2007 to a relatively small deficit of 1 percent of GDP in 2009. The authorities’ expansionary policy was not called into question by markets because of the low level of the deficit and the credibility of Sweden’s comprehensive fiscal policy framework—including a top-down budget process, a fiscal surplus target of 1 percent of GDP over the output cycle, a ceiling for central government expenditure set three years in advance, a balanced-budget requirement for local governments, and an independent fiscal council.
2. Central bank credibility allows monetary policy to be used aggressively.
During the crisis, the Riksbank lowered its target short-term interest rate nearly to zero and implemented sweeping liquidity measures, including long-term repurchase agreement operations and the provision of dollar liquidity.
3. A flexible exchange rate can help absorb the shock.
During the crisis, the krona fell in value against both the dollar and the euro as investors flocked to reserve currencies. It depreciated by 15 percent in real effective terms from mid-2008 to early 2009, supporting net exports and helping prop up economic activity.
4. Decisive action to ensure financial sector soundness is crucial.
Swedish banks were badly hurt by the financial crisis, despite their negligible exposure to U.S. sub- prime assets. Bank profitability fell sharply in 2008– 09, and two of the largest banks — both increasingly funded on wholesale markets and exposed to the Baltics — saw their loan losses spike and their share prices and ratings decline accordingly. The authorities took fast action to calm depositors and inter- bank markets, including a doubling and extension of the deposit guarantee and introduction of new bank recapitalization and debt guarantee schemes.
The Business Insider website ran a story about a currency manipulator that is bigger than China. They are referring to Israel whose holdings of foreign currency is 61% of GDP compared to 45% in China. The chart below shows the Bank of Israel’s (BoI) foreign currency reserves, which have ballooned since early 2008 when the central bank began buying up dollars and selling shekels. By selling shekels and buying US dollars the Bank of Israel hopes to make its exports more competitive by maintaining a weaker currency. March 2008 was he first time since 1997 that the Bank intervened in the foreign exchange market. However markets are of the opinion that the BoI run a dirty float policy on the exchange rate and speculate as to what its intervention price is. Some suggest that the price that they are aiming for is approximately 3.8 shekels per dollar.
Although this is an interesting article I do wonder how a small economy like Israel’s can be of any serious threat to the US manufacturing sector. Also I would suggest that reserves of 61% of GDP in Israel is a lot smaller than 45% of GDP in China. The actual figures are below:
China: $7.26 trillion 45% = $3.27 trillion
Israel: $245.95bn 61% = $1.65bn
However, all this accusation of the US calling China a currency manipulator is interesting when you consider other countries e.g. Israel and Switzerland are doing something similar. For the US, having a trade deficit is a function of it simply consuming beyond its means. The exchange rate matters with which country you incur the trade deficit with. If China’s goods became more expensive (with the Yuan allowed to appreciate) the US would probably keep on borrowing more money. From a Chinese perspective why should it have to stop fixing its exchange rate to the US$ when the US keeps on borrowing money and getting into further debt.
It is important that you are aware of current issues to do with the New Zealand and the World Economy. Examiners always like students to relate current issues to the economic theory as it gives a good impression of being well read in the subject. Only use these indicators if it is applicable to the question.
Indicators that you might want to mention are as follows:
The New Zealand Economy
The New Zealand economy expanded by 0.6 percent in the June 2012 quarter, while economic growth in the March quarter was revised down slightly to one percent. Favourable weather conditions leading to an increase in milk production was a significant driver of economic growth over the June quarter. The current account deficit rose to $10,087 million in the year ended June 2012, equivalent to 4.9 percent of GDP. Higher profits by foreign-owned New Zealand-operated banks and higher international fuel prices were factors behind the increase in the deficit during the year. Unemployment is currently at 6.8% but is expected to fall below 6% with the predicted increase in GDP. Annual inflation is approaching its trough. It is of the opinion that it will head towards the top end of the Reserve Bank’s target band (3%) by late next year.
The Global Economy
After the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) the debt-burdened economies are still struggling to reduce household debt to pre-crisis levels and monetary and fiscal policies have failed to overcome “liquidity traps”. Rising budget deficits and government debt levels have become more unsustainable. The US have employed the third round of quantitative easing and are buying US$40bn of mortgage backed securities each month as well as indicating that interest rates will remain at near zero levels until 2015. Meanwhile in the eurozone governments have implemented policies of austerity and are taking money out of the circular flow. However in the emerging economies there has been increasing inflation arising from capacity constraints as well as excess credit creation. Overall the deleveraging process can take years as the excesses of the previous credit booms are unwound. The price to be paid is a period of sub-trend economic growth which in Japan’s case ends up in lost decades of growth and diminished productive potential. The main economies are essentially pursuing their own policies especially as the election cycle demands a more domestic focus for government policy – voter concerns are low incomes and rising unemployment. Next month see the US elections and the changing of the guard in China. In early 2013 there is elections in Germany. The International Monetary Fund released their World Economic Outlook in which they downgraded their formal growth outlook. They also described the risk of a global recession as “alarmingly high”.
The recent job summit called by Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) focused on the strength of the NZ dollar and the impact it is having on manufacturing jobs in the New Zealand economy. This has been area that the opposition parties have targeted especially the Greens. Although a weaker dollar would make exports more competitive there are concerns about the mechanism used to achieve. Certain procedures to reduce the value of a currency have been well documented. They are as follows:
1. Quantitive Easing – printing money.
You need to look no further than the US economy to to see what has been the impact of 3 rounds of QE. Although the US dollar fell after QE1 in late 2008 a lot of could be said to have been caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and others around that time. QE2 in November 2010 correlated with the fall in the US dollar but again some have indicated that this was a result of the US economy being energised by the Federal Reserve and therefore it was safe to buy risky investments (US dollar seen as safe). You don’t have to look for another example where QE has had a limited impact – Japan since 2001. Here the Japanese authorities have found that QE has seen the Yen strengthen.
2. RBNZ enter the foreign exchange market and buy NZ dollars with currency reserves
This has been tried before with little success – equilibrium is restored at pre-intervention levels and the venture has proved very costly. Furthermore, there is the specter of inflation to contend with in years to come. The currency value has been more influenced by which stage of the business cycle the NZ economy is sitting at. In the 1990’s the Bank of Japan has spent billions of dollars trying to stop the appreciation of the Yen against the US dollar. The Swiss National Bank had to spend the equivalent to 70% of its GDP buying euros to cap the Swiss franc.
3. Drop the Reserve Bank’s Official Cash Rate (OCR)
When an economy’s interest rates are relatively high compared to other economies there is the incentive to park your currency where you get higher returns i.e. borrow from Japan at near 0% and investing in Australia at 5%. However lower interest rates doesn’t necessarily mean a lower exchange rate – the Reserve Bank of Australia has dropped rates from 4.75% to 3.25% over the last couple of years but the Aussie dollar hasn’t moved. This is most likely due to the mining boom.
4. Contractionary Fiscal Policy
As Don Brash (Former RBNZ Governor) stated in the NZ Herald, the best way of reducing the value of the NZ dollar would be for the government returning to a surplus by reducing government spending and increasing taxes. This would take money out of the circular flow and therefore reduce aggregate demand. With inflation nearing the bottom of the target range the RBNZ would be forced to reduce the OCR and ultimately the NZ dollar without the threat of inflation.
Getting the exchange rate down is a very complex task and it seems that the foreign exchange market doesn’t punish negative figures of economic indicators i.e. high inflation. I suppose a increase in the value of the NZ dollar is due to our desire to fund our spending from overseas borrowing.
Below is chart to show how the Iranian Rial has collapsed against the US dollar – in reading the graph it takes a significant number of Rial to buy a US dollar. Over the past week it has lost 40% of its value mainly as the western sanctions on oil exports start to bite. These were imposed because of Iran’s disputed nuclear programme. This also indicates that the Iranian central bank’s is finding it impossible to support its currency.
On 3rd October the currency traded at 36,100 though traders in Tehran said most foreign exchange centres have stopped trading in the US dollar. That compares with the official value of 12,260 rials per dollar set by the central bank. The chart below I got from the Business Insider website. It shows how many Rial it took to buy a dollar over the last 70 days. Note that on the Persian Calendar it’s the year 1391.
Here is a great graphic from the BNZ showing how the NZ dollar performed in September. You could say that it strengthened on the back of notably QE3 from the US Fed and the improving global growth sentiment. Furthermore the NZ economy has performed well under trying circumstances.
June quarter GDP accounts revealed the NZ economy finished Q2 1.6% bigger than where it began the year. That is solid economic growth under ordinary circumstances. But given the ongoing challenging and uncertain global economic environment we should not under sell this achievement. It is the strongest six month expansion we have seen in the past five years. Source: BNZ
Here is a cool graphic from the WSJ that looks at the impact of the US Fed’s monetary policy of dumping trillions of dollars into the economy in order to stimulate economic activity – it covers the period from September 2008 through to today. The graphic shows the impact on the following:
* 10 year treasury yields
* DJIA – Dow Jones Industrial Average
* WSJ US dollar index
Click WSJ Interactive Graphic to go to the page.
The New Zealand Farmers Weekly had an interesting piece on the future prospects of farm revenues over the next year. The outlook is not looking rosy mainly because of the high NZ dollar. A NZ$ value of US$0.90 for a full season would slash farm profit to $46,400 according to the Beef & Lamb NZ Economic Service. However the crucial time for the exchange rate is when the vast majority of produce is actually exported namely between November and June.
With regard to destinations for NZ beef they are the following:
- 50% of beef goes to North America
- 9% Japan
- 8% South Korea
- 6% Taiwan
There has been much talk in political circles about the increasing strength of the NZ$ is and its affect on New Zealand’s current account deficit. Labour, NZ First, and the Greens have all being calling for a change to the monetary policy framework – less of a focus on inflation and more on the exchange rate. Brian Fallow of the NZ Herald referred to it as a King Canute-like to imagine in such times that the New Zealand monetary policy settings, or the framework in which the central bank operates, make a difference to the NZ dollar. Cutting the Official Cash Rate (OCR) in a bid to lower the value of the NZ$, making exports cheaper and imports more expensive, would be something that markets would see through and expect to be reversed, and could prove counter productive. Those who say that the main focus of the RBNZ should still be inflation believe that policy be directed to variables that we have some control of i.e. supply-side policies geared to improving New Zealand’s productivity and competitiveness in global markets.
What does determine the value of the NZ$
The NZ$ is deteremined a whole range of variables at different times of the growth cycle in New Zealand and in overseas markets.
* Interest rate differentials – hot money – money which is borrowed at cheap rates overseas and then invested in a currency that has relatively higher interest rates.
* Commodity prices – primary products (priced in US$) – with higher prices this means more US$ have to be converted into NZ$ which increases the value of the NZ$
* Quantitative Easing by economies – US now has implemented QE3
* Risk mentality in financial markets – when the major markets are bouyant they regain their eagerness for more risk and invest in currencies like the NZ$
* International events – with the ease of moving money globally events such as wars, oil prices, exchange rates policies of larger nations lead to more unstability in foreign exchange
* NZ$ appreciates against the AUS$ to news that the Australian economy is stronger than previously anticipated and vice-versa.
However, as Brian Fallow pointed out, the exchange rate is not just about exports and imports but the gap between investment and saving. The more we rely on importing the savings of foreigners, the more demand there is for NZ$’s the stronger it becomes.
Here is a series of 6 cartoons from the Open University about economic concepts – I got this link from Mo Tanweer of Oundle School in the UK. They are very well done and make for good revision with the forthcoming exams. Below is one on The Invisible Hand. To view all 6 click on the link -
Open University 60 second adventures in economics.