wow. SNB going first is an interesting one - they only meet every 3 months but I'm guessing they're in fairly close contact with ECB officials
Yes, they're who I've voted for. Jordan recently sounded as if he wasn't going to but you can't ignore that moves in swissy stir (and the recent moves in the fix after months of stagnation) If they go they'll probably go 50. (P.S. don't sell march as a punt in it though, it expires before the meeting!)
Not been an SNB follower over the years. Do you remember the last time they hiked? Given that SNB and BOJ were the first two nations to adopt near-zero rates, even before the 2008 crisis, do you think it's quite surprising that SNB might be the first to raise now? And I see BoJ got a vote in the poll, that also surprised me.
SNB are not gonna go before the ECB. That's just arab screwing with your head. The only thing they care about is EURCHF and it's nowhere near where it needs to be for them to be happy about it. I am also not sure of what you mean by them adopting zero rates before 2008.
Maybe you are new to the markets Martinghoul? On June 15, 2000 SNB target range was 3.00 - 4.00% They began easing on March 22, 2001 and by March 6 2003 the target range was 0.00 - 0.75%. At the time the US and ECB were nearer 4-5%. Anything below 2% was unheard of, except in Japan and Switzerland. BoJ and SNB experienced "near-zero" rates well before it became the cool thing for super doves like Bernanke to do (not "zero", I think you misread). In those days, Japan was ridiculed. Now everyone follows the same path they took. Actually if you go further back in time, the SNB effectively made rates negative when they charged you a tax to hold balances. And I recall borrowing Japanese money in 1998 at -20 basis points through a JPU/USD fx swap and investing the proceeds in Japanese TBills at 0.02% for a risk free profit. It is just amusing to see how all the major central banks ended up in the same liquidity trap near 0%. Same mistakes, but multiplied.
Hahaha, do you think I am new to the mkt? I know what happened with Swiss and Yen rates in history, thank you very much (in fact, I think we had a discussion some time ago here about negative LIBORs). However, I don't really see what direct relevance it has to the current situation. CHF rates were emphatically not at zero immediately prior to 2008, hence my comment.
Who said "at zero"? I said "near zero". By which I mean - having a "zero handle" 0.xx% I suppose it depends how you define "near zero" but I would say 50bp or even 75bp counts. Certainly when you consider Bank of England went 400 years without moving rates below 2%. And then they decide this is the worst financial crisis for 400 years... They overreacted, plain & simple.
I know you didn't mean zero. I didn't realize that your statement about Switzerland and Japan being the first to adopt near zero rates before 2008 applied to that far back in history. As to the Bank of England, had you, like them, known what lovely surprises Fred the Shred left on the RBS balance sheet, you wouldn't call what they did an overreaction. What do they say about staring into the abyss?
These were my recent thoughts. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-treasury-and-bank-of-england-should.html