The History of the Eurodollar Market in the 1960s

Written by admin on May 18th, 2011

a development might well be welcomed as it would avoid putting too much upward pressure on the Euro-dollar rate which could be embarrassing for domestic short rate policies. A differential between UK Treasury Bill rates (adjusted for the cost of forward cover) and the Euro-dollar rate, in favour of Euro-dollars, could lead to switching of funds previously held in the UK, by non-residents into the Euro-market. It is the general problem of separating outflows of sterling which is causing great difficulty. One can only arrive at an approximate answer by correlating relative interest rates against the outflows. However, the Euro-dollar differential appears to have exerted little influence on the switching of funds out of sterling balances. This of course does not mean that the Euro-dollar/UK Treasury Bill differential has not exerted an influence in the past – it simply means that as yet we have not proved it. As one would expect, sterling holders be tempted to switch their funds by an attractive premium in favour of Euro-dollars, (unless they was completely irrational).

The Euro-dollar market was composed of a very large amount of funds highly sensitive to relative movements in interest rates. If a position was postulated whereby UK interest rates fall relative to Euro-dollar rates, (US interest rates rise which pushes up the Euro-dollar rate and UK short rates do not follow), the effects on the UK balance of payments would be of two types: (a) funds invested in the UK directly by Euro-bankers (usually in Local Authority deposits) would be withdrawn; and (b) sterling balances of non-residents would be switched into dollars and invested in the Euro-dollar market . Funds invested in the UK directly by Euro-bankers will be shown up by changes in “Dealers’ net deposit liabilities in foreign currencies”. These liabilities reflect the extent to which banks have switched any foreign currency deposits lodged with them into sterling. In all cases, the initiative is in the hands of the banks themselves. By no means all of the switching done by the dealers is the reflection of relative interest rate advantages, but nevertheless this is bound to be a part. As a large part of the foreign deposits lodged with UK banks will be dollars on which the banks pay the Euro-dollar rate, and as generally speaking, all switching is covered forward, the banks will have usually found it unprofitable to have borrowed these funds and to have invested in UK treasury bills. However, there have been arbitrage advantages in investing in local authority deposits or finance house deposits .

1964 – “The New Labour Administration”

1964 was a significant era for the Euro-dollar market, as not only was there a change in Government, but it was at this time that Euro-dollars changed from being a new phenomenon into a prominent force in the market. The Labour Party had come to power, with Harold Wilson, as the new British Prime Minister. However, it was clear for the new Labour Administration that the UK was facing a deficit of £800m on its overseas payments for the year 1964. It was this inheritance from the Conservatives which was to dominate almost every action of the government for five years. The new administration was faced with three courses of action: devaluation of sterling, quantitative restrictions on imports (quotas), and a surcharge, in effect a temporary additional tariff, on a wide range of imports. At the time in 1964, devaluation was not an option, given the size of the new government’s majority, it was not a surprising decision. Also, the new incoming government did not fully know the true facts of Britain’s deficit. However, there was no option but to accept devaluation. In 1967, there was no alternative, central bank and governments accepted the decision as necessary. However, Wilson, had argued strongly (from 1964-67), that devaluation was not a easy way out, that by its very nature in cheapening exports and making imports dearer, it would require a severe and rapid transfer of resources from home consumption, public and private, to meet the demands of overseas markets. This would have meant, brutal restraints in both public and private expenditure over and above the domestic situation that the labour administration had inherited. Other considerations, were that devaluation could have started a competitive currency devaluations – similar to those of the 1930s, and could have led to stimulating economic nationalism and blind protection abroad .

Quotas were rejected, due to the damage it could have inflicted on industrial production, no matter how selective the system, and in particular, their effect in ossifying the industrial structure, penalising new or growing or efficient firms and “feather-bedding” the un-competitive. Tariff was the third proposition left. However, this was not an easy option either. As, it would be argued abroad that a sudden rise in the tariff over a wide range of commodities was contrary to the UK’s international obligations, particularly those of GATT, and EFTA. Other nations that had close economic relations with the UK, such as the Commonwealth countries, the Irish Republic, the USA, would have had strong grounds for protest. There was fear that once imposed, the surcharge would be difficult to remove. Other fears were that UK manufacturers that were enjoying a temporary protection against foreign competition, would slide into easy ways, instead of responding to the challenge by making themselves still more competitive. However, despite these anxieties, action had to be taken, so the import surcharge was recommended. It was decided that a rate of 15% would be imposed on all imports, except food, tobacco and basic raw materials. On the 26th October, ten days after taking office, a statement was issued underlying the “economic situation”. It concluded that the strength of sterling could and would be maintained, the underlying economic situation remained profoundly unsatisfactory. The balance of payments deficit for 1964 was most unlikely to be below £700m and might well reach £800m. While a considerable improvement was expected, in 1965, the deficit would still be at an unacceptable level. The position on imports and exports was surveyed together with the domestic economic situation, the problem of “continually rising prices” – and the position on public expenditure. The statement went on to announce the introduction of surcharges, at 15%, on all imports, except food, tobacco, and basic raw materials. In its first ten days in office, it was clear that the new Labour administration had to deal with an explosive economic situation .

The Economy – “Speculation against Sterling and the drain on reserves”

In London, there were a number of large international companies which held considerable amounts of working capital in sterling. There was a growing business in the speculation in sterling (based on selling sterling to obtain foreign currencies). These “players” held the future of sterling – particularly to the exchange rate itself – tend to move their money out, even at a relatively high cost in terms of interest, to some currency they regard as more secure. At the time of heavy balance of payments deficit there was, a large quantity of sterling splashing about in the markets of the world and, when confidence in sterling was low, dealers in many markets sold sterling for US dollars, German Marks, Swiss Francs, or anything deemed safer. The only way in which British citizens were able to take a position in sterling, (as they expected either a marginal fall or an outright devaluation) was by postponing receipt of the payments that was due to them in some foreign currency, since after the fall in the sterling rate such foreign currencies would be worth more in sterling terms .

However, importers who had to make payments in foreign currency tended to advance their payments, paying the bill beforehand. In difficult times, there was clear evidence that importers were increasing the physical qualtities of their imports, buying their raw materials 3-6, even 12 months ahead, and paying as quickly as possible for the imports thus ordered. These “Leads and lags” had the effect of running into hundreds of millions of pounds on the sterling position and thus on the reserves. On top of this, speculation grew to great proportions when a devaluation was expected. Such dealings were confined to foreign exchange dealers/speculators. These were in the form of dealers getting rid of sterling, they held or selling sterling they did not possess with the idea of buying it back some days later. This meant that, if these dealers had to pay bills in sterling, they had to borrow at extortionate rates of interest. Nevertheless, this speculation proved so severe that, it was becoming a threat to the balance of payments deficit. Indeed, it virtually disappeared as a threat once the UK moved into strong surplus, but that was after 1969. However, before the UK was in surplus, the government had to take actions against what the speculators might do, hereby looking at the “confidence factor”. So, things had to be rightly timed, in order to minimize possible speculative consequences, (this was also the case in 1969 when the UK were moving into a strong surplus). This meant that the City, closely monitored the actions of the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Prime Minister. One mistake the government admitted was always underestimating the power of the speculators. It was this understanding, that made the government more determined to strengthen the basic position of sterling, which meant strengthening the balance of payments – which in turn strengthening the competitiveness of British industry. This was the point of the Chancellor’s statement on the 11th November

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

«
»

Leave a Reply