We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Euro-zone – converging on the best?

Home / Press Centre / Euro-zone – converging on the best?

06 April 2016
Macro Economics

In his April 2016 Ahead of the Curve, Neil Williams, Group Chief Economist at Hermes Investment Management, analyses the health of the euro-zone economy and whether the worst of its macro strains are over. 

By ‘pushing out the boat on QE2’ a little further, cutting rates again and setting up new longer-term refinancing for banks, the ECB is taking out as much as it can for now from its emptying policy ‘tool-box’. But, even more negative rates may follow.

Negative policy rates have been tried before, evidenced in the early 1970s by Switzerland’s tax on deposits to weaken the franc. It had only limited benefit. Their effectiveness now will be in keeping bond yields down. With some two-thirds of euro-zone private borrowing – consumer and corporate – being long-yield, rather than short-rate, driven, further rate cuts seems the more hopeful, albeit indirect, route to growth.

‘Helicopter money’ may be hampered by the liquidity trap & lack of a fiscal agency...

‘Helicopter money’ is considered a next step. But, this works only if consumers and firms pass on to each other what falls their way – that is, the ‘velocity of circulation’ builds. If hoarded, it’s unlikely to be inflationary. Euro-zone velocity (ratio of nominal GDP to M3 money supply) has done little more than flatline at about 0.25 since 2008.

The risk is the euro-zone is caught in a ‘liquidity trap’ where consumers and firms, worried about jobs and deflation, hold onto the cash or pay off debt, no matter how hard the cash ‘falls’. This plus the absence of a region-wide fiscal agency probably preclude a US-style ‘drop’ from being effective. (In the US, tax-rebate cheques were ‘helicopter dropped’ to consumers in 2001 and 2008 to cushion its recessions.)

Convergence is correcting - necessary, though not sufficient, for the zone’s economic health...

To test whether the macro strains are still spreading, we update our ‘Misery Indices’ (MIs), which are based on euro-zone members’ prospects for inflation, deflation and unemployment (please see explanation in the report). The chart below shows our predictions for 2016 and 2017. Rising MIs predict greater economic hardship relative to that country’s recent past.

On this basis, our MIs offer the following observations. First, after a marked deterioration in euro-zone members’ MIs during the global crisis, improvement since 2014 looks like it’s going to be sustained in 2017. As a bloc, the euro-zone’s (weighted) MI at zero next year should be the lowest since 2007. Second, it’s not surprising to see as the ‘most miserable’ those members running austerity to cut deficits and debt. Unemployment and deflationary pressure from the fiscal squeeze keep their MIs elevated. In 2016, for the seventh year running, Greece, Cyprus and Italy will lie in the above-average-misery zone in the chart.

But even these are much improved on 2010-14. Average misery is back down to when the euro became the single currency. Most revealing is what our MIs say about convergence. The combination of reducing macro strains in the periphery without as swift an improvement in the core means the unhelpful divergence since 2008 is correcting (see chart 5 in report).

This is encouraging, though it is not enough to tackle the underlying cause of the crisis - which is a monetary union lacking economic union. This will take years to solve.

Tackling the cause needs more than just QE, which, as we know from the US and UK, is more likely to generate asset-price than demand inflation. Yet, without it, some of the benefits to Spain, Italy and others from their competitiveness gains may be offset by an even stronger euro.

QE could thus be with us for many years to come, including as a counterweight to another probable Greece restructuring. But, while far from fixed, our analysis suggests the worst of the euro-zone’s macro strains may at least be over.



Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Amy Wilson
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Andrew Parry
  • Claire Gavini
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Eoin Murray
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ilana Elbim
  • Ingrid Holmes
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Joseph Buckley
  • Kimberley Lewis
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martin Todd
  • Maxime Le Floch, CFA
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Neil Williams
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Peter Hofbauer
  • Philip Nell
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Crockford
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Yasmin Chowdhury

Find posts by category

  • macro economics

Press contacts