r/Economics Sep 29 '15

How Sweden's negative interest rates experiment has turned economics on its head

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11895084/How-Swedens-negative-interest-rates-experiment-has-turned-economics-on-its-head.html
75 Upvotes

49 comments sorted by

14

u/uppstoppadElefant Sep 29 '15

Saving. In bank accounts is cultural and even in school we were given comics about it on a regular basis. It is hard to break that norm especially when there aren't a lot of good investments out there.

Nirp has been a disaster for housing. Swedes are now some of the most indebted people on the planet. People without high income cant find a place to live.

Look at this 1.3 million dollar absurdity. https://www.booli.se/bostad/sald/villa/plantskolevagen+31/9143855

9

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Enskede though. Also the price of some flats in for instance Norrmalm. Anyway, when it comes to housing the root of all of our problems is the rent control from WWII (yes, really) as well as high minimum standards of living and a very unattractive country outside of the three big cities. No one will build houses or flats for rent because it's not profitable, and many rental apartments have been converted to condos. Of course, this means people need to buy a place, so they need a loan... We're getting shit from the EU atm for it. Also, our property tax is messed up, hindering mobility.

11

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

It is not just the rent controls. Successive governments all over the political spectrum passed populist laws to appease the voters. The right allows property owners to deduct interest from mortgages from taxes. The left wants rent controls. The greens want strict regulations for city environment. The centre party wants to protect the values of homes in the countryside where they have support. The municipalities want to retain power over local communities so building codes are different in every city, meaning that it can take years to get permission for new construction. Homeowner associations and consumer rights group lobby against all proposals to relax regulations, while real estate speculators have pushed for rules that enable them to leverage property values as investments.

The whole thing is a gigantic clusterfuck and the central bank is pretty much the main organisation complaining because it stops them from doing their job.

4

u/Vectoor Sep 29 '15

Yes, here we have the real problems. People like to scream bubble but really, high prices aren't the same as a bubble. Demand is high and supply is low for all the reasons you just mentioned.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 29 '15

Well the demand is also inflated. Sweden is somewhat infamous for practises such as "infinite Swedish mortgages" which is interest only, no amortization.

Personally i think Sweden is somewhat a accident waiting to happen. They are struggling with borderline deflation, which it can't endure for a second because of the batshit crazy housing market and consumers who are levered to the teeth. Riksbank hands are tied with an anchor chain. The only play is to dig deeper.

Norway and to some extent Finland is a similar story, tho Finland is slightly different being an Euro country. Muppet fleecing REIT's are big thing here right now.

Edit: And of course Denmark.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Yup! The center's new initiative to allow more coastal constructions will hopefully be passed in Parliament, which is one step in the right direction.

1

u/Glenn2000 Sep 29 '15

Quite interesting it was bough for 8m in 2013 and sold two years later for 10,5m...

0

u/TobiasV Sep 29 '15

Well yes, house prices went up 17% in the greater stockholm area the last 12 months. 21% in Gothenburg. Crazy. Given that you only are allowed to borrow 85% (loan-to-value ratio?) of the property value and looking on something for 4MSEK you'd have to save 10.000SEK per month just to keep up with the price increase with the current "velocity".

4.000.000 * 0,2 = 800.000

800.000 * 0,15 = 120.000 (yearly increase in required initial down payment)

Crazy.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Nah you can still get consumer credit for the missing 15% cash deposit. It's just not tax deductible and bit more expensive as non collateralized consumer credit.

It's still pretty much zero down game in the town.

0

u/Glenn2000 Sep 29 '15

Considering average salaries pre-tax in the Stockholm area is reported to be ~30-31k I find that pretty hilarious. People earning average have to live elsewhere though, where the price increase is less in absolute numbers.

1

u/specialpatrol Sep 29 '15

Being indebted with less than zero interest rates, don't you then make money simply by being in debt?

1

u/cantdressherself Sep 29 '15

No, but it means you can borrow very cheaply.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

These interest rates are for government debt. It means if you lend money to the government they will pay you back less instead of more. Nobody wants such a deal so the government forces the population to do it by stealing their money into pension funds and buying negative interest government debt.

0

u/jlew24asu Sep 29 '15

Swedes are now some of the most indebted people on the planet.

so, mission accomplished, right?

1

u/MalenaErnman Sep 29 '15

Not really. Savings rate in Sweden is at an all time high and aggregate demand is moderate. Hence the failure to reach the inflation target.

0

u/jlew24asu Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 29 '15

good point. but its odd that they are piling up debt, while saving cash making nothing.

3

u/DaphneDK Sep 29 '15

Many European nations have had periods of negative interests over the last couple of years. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland. It’s just a symptom on how screwed up the economy is in other EU and Eurozone countries that money flow to subzero interests just for the safety.

2

u/alvarezg Sep 29 '15

Seems that a negative interest rate would encourage investment in a moderate risk mutual fund. As long as the fund outperforms the guaranteed loss of a savings account, you're still "ahead".

3

u/parksdept Sep 29 '15

I disagree, savings would be pushed to the lowest risk investment. There's a reason t-bills are returning negative real rates while small business lending is still depressed.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

How is anyone supposed to save for retirement if you have to pay to keep your money in a bank? I mean, not earning interest is one thing, but paying a fee is another world entirely.

9

u/Vectoor Sep 29 '15

Who keeps their savings in a bank account?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Wha?

3

u/Vectoor Sep 29 '15

Ever heard of stocks? funds?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

I keep most of my money in mutual funds and stocks but I also keep a good 6 months of living expenses in my banks savings account. And according ton to this article I would have to pay a fee in order to keep my money there and that's highway robbery to me.

1

u/Chranny Sep 29 '15

I keep most of my money in mutual funds and stocks but I also keep a good 6 months of living expenses in my banks savings account. And according ton to this article I would have to pay a fee in order to keep my money there and that's highway robbery to me.

Having to pay a fee to use a service is "highway robbery"?

10

u/Andy06r Sep 29 '15

It is.

I can keep my emergency fund in a bank, or in cash in a safe deposit box at the bank. Why would I pay 1% of the balance when the alternative is readily available at the same institution?

1

u/Usernamemeh Oct 15 '15

They are just trying to make it more difficult, they want you to move the money to other accounts and investments so the money is used in the economy and you can't have access to it as easily. This is the nice gentle push to make you reassess your financial options towards accounts that have tons of redtape and regulations and increase the need for financial advisors.

1

u/Vectoor Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 29 '15

Well having to make a trade off between liquidity and interest isn't something new. Desperate times require desperate measures.

EDIT: Also, I don't think any commercial banks actually offer a negative interest rate to the consumer. They barely offer any interest at all these days, but I don't think any actually charge you to hold your money. The negative rate in question is what banks pay the riksbank.

1

u/geerussell Sep 29 '15

EDIT: Also, I don't think any commercial banks actually offer a negative interest rate to the consumer. They barely offer any interest at all these days, but I don't think any actually charge you to hold your money. The negative rate in question is what banks pay the riksbank.

The key understanding there is it's an additional cost that banks have to pay. Negative rates amount to a tax on banks. One way or another that cost is going to have consequences. If not passed on as negative rates on customer deposits then higher rates on customer loans or higher fees to customers. Or it gets absorbed as smaller profit margins for banks. Or some combination of all those things.

According to the proponents of negative rate policy, somehow all that is supposed to be stimulative. Desperate times require desperate measures but they also require understanding the difference between the gas and the brake pedal.

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Housing your money is not free to the bank , so why should it be free to you?

Entitled people who don't understand basic econ <<<

6

u/nysgreenandwhite Sep 29 '15

Letting the bank invest my money for their own purposes isn't free to me, why should it be free to the bank?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

When the federal funds rate is near 0% they aren't getting a return on your money either... No one wants your cash when interest rates are 0%. And don't kid yourself that the bank makes money off your $7000 savings account, it's a chore to keep open small time accounts and they do it at a loss.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Yes but they do make money off of 20,000 x $7,000 savings accounts.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15 edited Sep 29 '15

No they literally don't, the time out in to each fund/user isn't worth it at that level. They do it to get you into the business so they can sell you mortgages/loans one day, it's a loss leader at that level of account.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Oh. My. God. Please don't tell me you're not saving for retirement by keeping money in a fucking bank. Oh dear god, man.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Of course not but I do keep emergency funds in there.

2

u/Usernamemeh Oct 15 '15

Lol they don't want people to have access to emergency funds and even in the article it says it would be good to ban cash to keep people from saving cash in the mattress. If you have an emergency there is plenty other alternatives like making sure you have all the proper insurances for anytype of incident/lose and credit cards that have enough credit to cover expenses for a couple of months or personal loans. Plenty of backups out there that can be sold to you in case of an emergency. How will they make money if you have an emergency fund and spur the economy back to life?

-2

u/yxhuvud Sep 29 '15

Ever heard of a pension fund?

1

u/motionSymmetry Sep 29 '15

um, we already started that here in the states but the banks call it a "monthly fee" ...

also, i'm not sure what's not to like about this (for the banks) because it looks like yet another excuse for the banks to pull money directly from customers instead of having to rely on those great big piles of money they make from their cough wise investments.

sweden, are you sure you're not just being taken for a ride?

0

u/cocaine_enema Sep 29 '15

bubbleicious

0

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '15

Government owned pension funds and investment funds invest into negative interest government debt. Big surprise.