My column in the edit page of Economic Times . The unedited version is below.
Quantitative Easing(QE) – Markets saviour or economic bogey?
QE defined
Quantitative easing (QE) is an unorthodox way of increasing
money supply in an economy. It involves the central bank increasing the size of
its balance sheet and using the money to buy up assets. This provides banks
more money to lend, and reduces interest rates – allowing fresh growth-inducing
investments.
In the recent past three major central banks – the US Fed,
the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan have used it to attempt to revive
their domestic economy. Some economists suggest that the mild upticks we see in
these economies are a result of this strategy working. Others worry that the
consequences of large scale liquidity creation increases asset prices and
causes inflation – especially in emerging economies.
QE effects are
difficult to find
What has been the Indian experience? Ostensibly, yield
seeking foreign investors should arrive in droves to arbitrage the growth (and
returns) that may be achieved in India when their home country offers zero
interest rates. This does not seem to have happened in the equity markets. A glance
at the chart of nifty above would suggest that while QE1 seemed to succeed in
raising the market, the subsequent actions of the US Fed have not. In rupee
terms, the Nifty is up a measly 4% per annum for the past 3 years, while in
dollar terms, the returns are a negative 2% compounded. Despite the much touted
“liquidity” driver for Indian markets, atleast the equity market does not seem
excited.
Liquidity infusion is supposed to increase asset prices,
cause inflation, and lead to currency appreciation in the country which is the
recipient of inflows. In the case of India, stock prices are up approximately
8% per annum since June 2007, real estate prices increased on average 10% per
annum, and inflation (CPI) has been in the same ball-park, while currency has
depreciated! Real returns from almost all asset classes seem zero or negative.
During the same time however, Gold prices have gone up
approximately 21% compounded. Unlike other assets, India is perhaps a price
maker rather than price taker when it comes to gold. The explanation that
investors in India have chosen to use gold as a hedge against currency
depreciation appears to hold water.
Economic policy, not
foreign flows, to blame for inflation
Can we blame inflation on foreign inflows? Over the past few
years, M3 – a measure of money supply has grown approximately 16% per year.
This fell to 14.2% in Q1 FY13, and post QE3, is now at 12.6%. Foreign inflows
do not seem to have raised money supply in India.
The economic survey has identified that there are over Rs7.5
lakh crores worth of projects stuck in India due to policy issues – mining,
environment, land acquisition being major problems. Inflation has mostly been
caused by policy inaction leading to supply constraints and some policy action
(increase of administered prices – energy and food in particular).
The Indian economy needs serious investment in
infrastructure. Long term infrastructure projects are best financed by long
term capital at low interest rates. The global environment offered India just
such an opportunity. This was India’s best chance to increase productive capacity
of the economy and allow growth without inflation. Lack of focus on “enabling”
policy prevented investment in core sectors. In a world where increasing
inflation is the target of most central banks, home-made inflation seems to be
our own doing.
A world without QE
What could happen if liquidity were to tighten and if
central banks were to reverse easy money policy? Well, if the above is true –
not a whole lot! Interest rates would rise in the rest of the world as would global
inflationary expectations. Since most currencies are engaged in competitive
devaluation, the relative effect of currency movements would be neutralised.
Real interest rates in India may actually increase – leading
to higher savings, lower dependence on foreign inflows, and better capital
allocation.
Money is not a commodity that remains constant. When dealing
with QE induced money flows, the question “where will the money go” is
nonsensical. The money can remain on the balance sheets of banks (as happened
in the initial stages of QE1 and QE2). It can also be lost when asset prices
fall – like when the real estate bubble in the US burst. Investment activity
should be and largely is, based on expectations of future returns. If QE3
works, it is entirely possible that developed markets will provide greater
opportunities to investors than emerging markets. A case in point is the new
high that the US equity markets have reached – while emerging markets like
India remain below their all time highs.
Trying to guess the timing or direction of money flows is a fruitless
activity.
India’s economic managers would do well to look at measures
that would remove constraints in the real economy rather than focusing on financial
markets. Financial markets are meant to serve as the barometer of investment
outlook – fiddling with the barometer does not change the underlying reality of
a poor investment climate.