Interest rates stay at 0.5% - No additional QE

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

As expected.

chucknorris

Yet another month when I forgot that the decision was today, years ago I would have been paying attention waiting to hear what the decision was.

Percy1983

chucknorris wrote: »

Yet another month when I forgot that the decision was today, years ago I would have been paying attention waiting to hear what the decision was.

I know the feeling, I use to follow it closely, but the no change every month started to feel a bit predictable.

Graham_Devon

Few economists, including those on the beeb, have suggested, based on what Mervyn has publically stated earlier this month (saturation of QE etc), if there is no QE this month, that will be the end of QE.

Therefore this month could be quite important, as it oculd have, unbeknown to us all, be the last point where further QE could be implemented.

Guess we'll see.

Graham_Devon

And very sensible advice from a former BOE member...

Former MPC member Dr Andrew Sentance today urged his ex-colleagues to set out a plan for future rate rises now so that households and businesses have time to prepare.

Dr Sentance was consistently more hawkish than other committee members during his time on the MPC, calling for rate rises as long ago as June 2010.

Writing in his role as PricewaterhouseCoopers’ senior economic adviser, Dr Sentance said: 'The MPC should develop and pre-announce a medium term strategy for returning Bank base rate gradually to a more normal level (say, 2-3%) by some stated date (say, mid-2015). The strategy should allow some flexibility on the exact timing of this process, within clear parameters as to what factors would influence these timing decisions.

'This strategy would enable businesses and financial institutions to plan ahead as appropriate for the consequent rise in both short term and long term interest rates (the latter being particularly important for pension funds).'

wotsthat

That would seem like an odd strategy. Surely rates should be set according to the needs of the economy rather the a desire for them to be 'normal'.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

That would seem like an odd strategy. Surely rates should be set according to the needs of the economy rather the a desire for them to be 'normal'.

But surely the economy needs them to get back 'normal' before the current becomes normal.

ILW

Wish I knew what "normal" was.

coastline

wotsthat wrote: »

That would seem like an odd strategy. Surely rates should be set according to the needs of the economy rather the a desire for them to be 'normal'.

Normal..meaning to curb inflation would probably have base rates at least 4% now.
They have acted as a buffer for decades ...only since the world slump in 2008 have things changed.

Mallotum_X

ILW wrote: »

Wish I knew what "normal" was.

Sibley isn't normal... not sure that helps tho

wotsthat

coastline wrote: »

Normal..meaning to curb inflation would probably have base rates at least 4% now.
They have acted as a buffer for decades ...only since the world slump in 2008 have things changed.

That graph stopped after September 2011 - how come?