Britain's recession, like the downturns in most other places, is being hailed as either having reachえｄ bottom or tailed off in its decline. The latest to trumpet the beginning of the end is the British Chambers of Commerce, which said business orders and sales had continued to fall in the second quarter but at a slower pace than previously.

So does this mean that the Bank of England will soon start raising interest rates from the negligible 0.5 percent reached last year as policymakers sought to pump liquidity into a failing economy? Not according to researchers Capital Economics, which argues in a new report that market assumptions of higher rates at an early stage are misplaced. They offer three reasons:

-- A return to strong levels of activity and rapid price gains in the housing market is unlikely for some time, even at very low interest rates. Meanwhile, the overall economy is likely to expand at only sluggish rates in the foreseeable future. And even if the recovery continues to gather pace, the large amount of spare capacity - or slack - in the economy suggests that there should be no hurry to tighten policy at all.

-- Even when monetary policy is finally tightened, some part of this will involve the reversal of the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme. Although the likely order of events is far from clear, this could delay the need for a conventional tightening in the form of higher interest rates.

-- Thirdly, there is good chance that monetary policy in general takes a back seat to a substantial tightening of fiscal policy as the government responds to the growing pressure to sort out the public finances. This is likely to take the form both of higher taxes and a severe squeeze on public spending and would require monetary policy to be kept correspondingly loose to prevent the economy from slipping back into recession.

So, essentially, the BoE will not be able to raise rates because a) the economy is a long way from good b) it has other things to unwind first and c) life is going to be so miserable for Britons that low interest rates will be their only salvation.

This latter point is beginning to excerise a lot of thought in Britain, with the head of the Audit Commission criticising politicans for failing to be honest about the need for cutbacks, given a forecasted £175 billion public deficit this year -- more than 12 percent ofgross domestic product.

"People had better understand this is an unprecedented situation. We have never seen anything like this in your lifetime or mine," Former prime Minister John Major, who knows quite a bit about crises, told TV presenter Andrew Marr.

(Reuters photos: Eddie Keogh and Darren Staples)

MacroScope is pleased to post the following from guest blogger Simon Ward. Simon is chief economist of Henderson Global Investors in London and previously worked for New Star Asset Management and Lombard Street Research. His own blog is Money Moves Markets.

UK house prices are no longer expensive relative to a measure of "fair value" based on rents. Prices fell significantly below fair value during the major house price busts in the 1970s and 1990s but a big undershoot is unlikely in the current downturn because low interest rates will limit forced selling.

The notion that housing is no longer overvalued is controversial because the house price to income ratio remains far above its average since 1965. This average, however, is unlikely to be a good guide to fair value because the ratio has trended higher over time, reflecting factors such as improving quality, the pressure of an expanding population on constrained supply and a high income elasticity of demand for housing.

An alternative approach is to use rents rather than income as the basis of comparison. Rents already incorporate fundamental influences on housing demand and supply. People need to live somewhere – the choice is between buying your own home or renting, not between spending money on housing or retaining income for other purposes.

An economy-wide rental yield can be calculated from national accounts data by dividing the sum of actual rental payments and imputed rents of owner-occupiers by the value of the housing stock. The yield averaged 3.6 percent between 1965 and 2007. This seems low but the measure includes subsidised social housing and takes account of vacant properties.

The housing boom pushed the rental yield down to 2.8 percent at the end of 2007, suggesting that prices were then overvalued by about 29 percent, based on the 3.6 percent long-run average. The Halifax index has fallen by 21 percent since December 2007, while rents had grown 6 percent by the fourth quarter of last year. These changes imply a current yield of about 3.8 percent, consistent with small undervaluation.

The rental yield rose well above the 3.6 percent long-run average during prior housing busts. If the overshoot in the current downturn were to equal the undershoot during the boom, the yield would rise to 4.4 percent. This would be consistent with a further fall in prices of about 14 percent, assuming unchanged rents. A decline of this order is widely expected.

Such a scenario, however, is probably too pessimistic. A key difference from prior busts is the low level of mortgage interest rates, which is allowing many struggling borrowers to continue to service their loans. The Council of Mortgage Lenders last week reported that repossessions and arrears cases rose by less than feared in the first quarter. The CML intends to revise down its earlier forecast of 75,000 repossessions in 2009.

With less distressed selling, downward pressure on prices from rising supply is much smaller than in prior downturns. According to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the number of unsold homes on the books of the average estate agent stood at 69 in April – far below peaks of 166 and 196 in the last two major housing downturns. Meanwhile, buyer enquiries have picked up recently.

Translating buyer interest into transactions depends critically on mortgage availability. The last Bank of England credit conditions survey reported tighter mortgage supply in early 2009 but expectations of an improvement in the spring. Signs of a stabilisation of prices could have a self-reinforcing effect by encouraging lenders to reduce current high deposit requirements, designed partly to protect against negative equity.

Of course, if house prices bottom at a smaller discount to fair value than in previous downturns, this also implies less scope for a significant recovery over the medium term. Moreover, an increase in supply may have been postponed rather than cancelled – "zombie" borrowers will have their life support turned off once the MPC starts raising interest rates.

It says something about the current world that a new economic indicator is about to be unleashed by the Bank of England and it basically tells you whether banks have been doing what they are supposed to do -- lend.

The first Trends in Lending report is due out on April 21 at 0830 GMT. Always nice to have a new indicator, but this one may get a bit more attention than would have been the case a few years ago. It is designed to provide up-to-date information about bank lending to households and businesses.

Consumer groups, regulators trade bodies, the BoE, the UK government and lenders themselves will draw up the report under the rubric of something called The Lending Panel -- which a cruel cycnic might say sounds a bit like a high-interest loan shop.

Clearly, the purpose of the report is to show whether banks have been passing on the ultra-low interest rates that the BoE has been handing out.  What do you think it will show?

With ISA season coming to an end in less than a month, investors need to act sooner rather than later to make the most of the tax-free benefits on offer. You can not carry your annual allowance of 7,200 pounds into the next tax year, so it is a simple case of ‘use it or lose it’.

But with interest rates plummeting to an all time low, returns on cash individual savings accounts are miserly. So are stocks and shares ISAs a better home for your money? Financial experts certainly seem to think so – and so it would appear do investors.

A report by Barclays Stockbrokers says that the Bank of England’s decision to cut interest rates to 0.5 percent has led to a change in outlook for savers, with 63 percent saying that equities will provide the best returns this year. Of those planning to invest in a stocks and share ISAs in the 2009 tax year, 74 percent say they intend to maintain the same level of investment as 2008 and 20 percent plan to increase their investment.

Barbara-Ann King, Head of Investment Strategy at Barclays Stockbrokers said the report shows that “cash is no longer king.”

Dan Clayden, independent financial adviser from Clayden Associates, agrees: “The FTSE is around 40 percent down on its peak, so to me the equities market looks very appealing.”

Meanwhile, Tamsin Brown on whatinvestment.co.uk writes that investors looking to gain any serious returns from their ISA allowance will have to move out of their comfort zone. “Those looking to invest in a cash ISA at the moment will be lucky to find one offering much above the rate of inflation. Therefore, ISA investors seeking tax-free income this year have to be prepared to take on a little risk if they want their yield to do more than just keep up with the increase in the cost of living.”

However, Jennifer Hill at timesonline.co.uk writes that investors should be wary of the pitfalls. “Supposed ‘safe havens’ are not as low risk as they might seem. Money is pouring into corporate bond and equity-income funds, which can both be held within a stocks and shares ISA, since some are yielding up to 10 percent against an average of only 1.99 percent for cash ISAs. However, advisers said many savers may not appreciate the risks.”

Timesonline.co.uk also asked financial experts where they will be putting their money, with most saying that they also see the plunging markets as an opportunity. Some report a threefold increase in investors putting their money in stocks and shares rather than cash ISAs.

Recent rules changes allowing investors to transfer money from a cash ISA into a stocks and shares ISA without losing the tax advantages (though you can’t move it the other way) has also encouraged more people to opt for an equity scheme. Moneysavingexpert.com points out that ISA providers like to let you think your money is locked in and has a handy guide to transferring funds from one ISA to another that offers potentially better returns.

Anyone looking to make a quick buck from a stocks and shares ISA is likely to be disappointed. The message from experts seems to be the markets could drop further and any investment should be seen as long-term. The other key theme is diversification – spread your assets around and, whatever you do in these turbulent times, don’t put all your eggs into one basket.

Elsewhere from around the web, thisismoney.co.uk has a guide to choosing the best ISA and information on the best rates available, which is updated daily.

You have until 5 April to use up your annual tax-free allowance. You can invest up to 3,600 pounds in a cash ISA and 7,200 in a stocks and shares ISA, or split your money between both.

Britain could begin a telling exercise in classical monetary theory on Thursday as the central bank gets set to test a newly minted policy of “quantitative easing”.

In an effort to pump more money into the financial system and encourage banks to get lending again, the Bank of England has been given the green light to basically create more money.

 It will use the electronic funds to buy short- and long-dated gilts and a host of commercial debt in the hope that that will free up other capital to the banks, allowing them to lend more.

At root, the exercise is based on MV=PT, known as the Fisher equation of exchange and a mainstay of Keynesian monetary theory.

In the equation, M is the quantity of money and V is the velocity at which it travels around the economy. P stands for the general level of prices and T equals the number of transactions performed over a given accounting period.

In theory, V and T are more or less stable, meaning that all other things being equal, the amount of money in circulation has a direct impact on prices and/or the number of transactions.

By pumping more M into the economy (or at least making more M available), the central bank is hoping that economic activity will pick up (T will increase) and the economy will be reflated (P will pick up). In theory.

The problem will come if those who have more money made available to them — the banks, commercial borrowers, companies and ultimately individuals — end up sitting on it rather than using it. That would effectively mean that V falls.

That has always been the unquantifiable in monetary theory as precisely measuring the velocity of money is extremely difficult, not to say open to interpretation.

If it works, quantitative easing will push up M, P and T and a corner may be turned in the credit crisis. Maybe. If it doesn’t, then M may go up, but V, T and P will all go on falling, causing More Very Tricky Problems indeed.

The Bank of England’s decision to cut interest rates to a record low of 1.0 percent may have been widely predicted, but this did little to hold back the avalanche of commentary that began the moment the news came through at noon today.

Interest rates, which have now been cut five months in a row, are at the lowest level in the Bank’s 315-year history, and the list of people calling yet another easing pointless appeared to be getting longer.

Economist Ros Altman, writing on www.theguardian.co.uk, said: “This is another policy mistake. More panic cuts are not the answer to our economic crisis. Policymakers are desperately trying to boost the flagging economy and encourage more spending… but lower rates are a very crude weapon. They punish those who have got money to spend while benefiting the very groups (banks in particular) whose actions caused the mess in the first place.”

She wasn’t alone. BBC blogger Stephanie Flanders wrote: “It is hurting. But so far it isn’t working… Savers say they are being punished for nothing - rate cuts are hitting their income, while having less and less impact on the economy at large. They have a point.”

Meanwhile, Melanie Bien, of mortgage brokers Savills Private Finance, was quoted in several publications as saying: “Today’s cut was expected by the markets. It will assist those on base-rate trackers with no collars or standard variable rates if those lenders pass on any of the cut. But beyond that it will have little effect.”

The Sun didn’t hold back either, calling the rate cut a “desperate attempt to revive the flagging housing market” while The Daily Mail website said the MPC was “going for broke”.

Proponents of the drop were harder to find, but not non-existent. Ashley Seager, writing for The Guardian, said: “The argument doing the rounds that the Bank should have left interest rates at 1.5% while carrying out quantitative easing is nonsense. While it is true that the real problem has become the quantity, rather than the price, of credit, the idea that cutting rates makes no difference is simply not true.

“With around 40% of homeowners on tracker mortgages, the impact on many households’ families is immediate, and will reduce the burden on those homeowners unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs.”

Ian McCafferty, chief economic adviser to the Confederation of British Industry, was quoted as a supporter of the cut. “This drop in rates should support business confidence and, when added to recent cuts of the past couple of months and the fall in the pound, provides a very significant stimulus to the ailing economy.”

There was however a general consensus that rate cuts alone are not the answer to the economic crisis and that the Bank of England should do more to get banks lending again.

Have your say on the rate cut by posting a comment here.

The Bank of England has gone into further into uncharted territory with its decision to cut rates by half a point to just one percent. Many economists think they will be down to zero by the Spring.

But like gunfighter running out of bullets, the Bank is, in the view of some observers, just wasting ammunition by using the interest rate weapon.

The problem lies, they say, in the availability of credit, not the price of it. What use is a nice cheap loan on a house if a bank is demanding a whopping 25 percent deposit?

Do you think the Bank of England could do more to stimulate confidence and get credit flowing again — and if so, what could the central bank or the government do?

Interest rates have been cut again - to a record low of 1.5 percent. As they get ever closer to zero, the impact of rate cuts will become more and more limited. So what can central banks do to ease the economic pain?

“Quantitative easing”, or what non-economists call “turning on the printing press” is one of the options.

Here is our guide to how it works and which countries have used it:

WHAT IS QUANTITATIVE EASING?
– Quantitative easing refers to ways of boosting economic growth after traditional monetary policy tools, such as interest rate targets, have been exhausted.
– Central banks flood the banking system with masses of money, more than is needed to keep official interest rates at zero or a low rate, to shore up financial systems and promote lending. They usually do this by buying up large quantities of assets from banks.

WHO HAS USED IT?
* JAPAN:
– The BOJ adopted quantitative easing, going beyond keeping interest rates at zero, in March 2001 after the economy was hit by the bursting dot-com bubble and remained stuck in a battle with deflation.
– Many experts, including some BOJ policymakers, were sceptical whether the policy had any direct effect in reviving the economy, but most agreed it helped limit deflation and avert a more serious banking crisis.
– The extra fund cushion meant banks, burdened with massive nonperforming loans, avoided a liquidity crunch and were able to take bolder steps in cleaning up their loan portfolios.
– Instead of a traditional policy of raising or cutting short-term rates, the BOJ set a target for the amount of money it force-fed into the banking system. The funds were injected mainly through the BOJ’s purchases of government and commercial securities from banks. The policy ended in 2006.

WHO IS USING IT?
* THE FED:
– Economists agree the U.S. Federal Reserve has adopted a form of quantitative easing in its efforts to stabilise the financial system and help the economy, though in a different way from what the BOJ conducted.
– The Fed cut the benchmark federal funds rate target to a range of zero to 0.25 percent, saying it would help markets and stimulate the economy by keeping its balance sheet at a high level.
– The Fed has committed to purchasing large amounts of mortgage-related debt to help the housing market, and it is considering outright purchases of government bonds.
– Since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September, the Fed’s array of measures to shore up the financial sector has already caused its balance sheet to more than double in size to a record level above $2 trillion.
– The Fed said that its dramatic policy action last week did not signal increased concern about deflation but a determination to improve lending conditions by lowering mortgage rates and other important financial rates.

WHO MAY USE IT?
* BOE:
– Bank of England policymaker David Blanchflower said last month that monetary policymakers would be right to consider using extraordinary measures, including quantitative easing, to boost the economy and prevent a deflationary spiral.

* BOJ:
– If the global recession deepens, the BOJ may return to quantitative easing early next year. Naoki Iizuka, senior economist at Mizuho Securities, said the BOJ could resort to cutting Japanese rates to zero as early as January to contain the slump. Some analysts see the central bank going even further by reverting to quantitative easing.
– Using this policy could be hard to swallow for BOJ Governor Masaaki Shirakawa who, as a central bank bureaucrat, was involved in crafting the policy and has warned that keeping rates too low would distort money market functions.
– Senior BOJ officials have said the bank was not ruling out any policy options as the economy, already in recession, faces the risk of suffering its longest contraction on record.
– Shirakawa told parliament last month quantitative easing had a certain effect in stabilising the financial system, adding that he was examining the effects and side-effects of the policy.
– Like the Fed, the BOJ is trying to target troubled markets that are affecting the economy, such as the commercial paper market in which companies raise short-term financing. The BOJ said last week it would buy commercial paper outright and would boost the amount of its monthly government bond purchases.

(Guide compiled by David Cutler and Jijo Jacob)

The Bank of England has cut interest rates by a whole point to 2 percent in response to increasing worries over discouraging data and a looming recession.

This week, the all-important services sector (which makes up three quarters of economic output) recorded its weakest headline index since 1996 and seventh straight month of contraction. Together with dismal news on unemployment and inflation, these surveys confirm that recession is spiralling as we reach the close of 2008.

So was the rate cut enough?

The consensus among economists polled by Reuters was indeed for a full point drop, bringing the base rate to the lowest in more than half a century after the big 1-1/2 point cut last month.

But several economists had pushed for a 1-1/2 point cut and some even thought the economic situation is dire enough to warrant zero percent.

Do you think the Bank should have been bolder?

(Please note this is an updated version of an earlier Have Your Say which asked readers how big a rate cut they thought the Bank of England should make. The announcement was made at mid-day GMT)

This is a guest blog by Melanie Bien, director of independent mortgage broker Savills Private Finance. The opinions expressed are her own:

The Bank of England’s decision to cut rates by 1.5 percentage points to 3 per cent - the lowest level in 54 years - is a huge surprise and everyone was caught on the hop by this drastic reduction.

While on one level it is welcome news, particularly for those on base-rate trackers who will feel the full benefit straightaway, it is worrying on another: how bad have things got to necessitate this dramatic reduction?

The next inflation report from the Bank of England will be interesting reading. The reduction will not be an overnight solution to the problems in the mortgage market. But it will start to have a positive effect on the interbank rate - the rate banks pay to borrow money.

These rates have been much higher than base rate: three-month Libor is around 5.7 per cent, for example, explaining why new mortgage rates have been slow to fall. It is unlikely that lenders will reduce their standard variable rates (SVRs) by the full amount but with such a big rate reduction there will be pressure on them to pass on at least some of it, particularly those who passed on nothing after October’s half-point cut.

Those coming up to remortgage will be in for a shock if they think new rates will be much cheaper. A number of lenders - Lloyds TSB, Northern Rock and Woolwich - have pulled their trackers and are set to launch more expensive replacements. Abbey has already priced its trackers 50 basis points higher in anticipation of this reduction in base rate.

Lenders who have cheap trackers are likely to be flooded with applications, which will affect service levels. One way of controlling this is by raising rates and lenders are adopting a herd mentality, copying each other so no-one is left exposed with market-leading rates. Fixed-rate mortgages have started edging down and will continue to do so.

But while rates are falling on some products, criteria are tight and this will take some time to improve. The best mortgage rates are still available to those able to put down at least a 25 per cent deposit or who have this level of equity in their homes. First-time buyers without financial assistance from their parents will continue to struggle to get on the housing ladder.