Lombardelli's comments are significant. She is saying that neutral could be close to (or at 4%). And she is deviating from the wider Bank guidance that rates are still "meaningfully restrictive." Highlights on her views below:
- In August "I judged it appropriate to pause the reduction of monetary restriction, due to my concerns about the current and expected above-target rates of underlying inflation and my judgements about the balance of supply and demand in the economy. I preferred to maintain the level of monetary restriction for longer rather than continue to reduce it at the previous pace."
- "At the time of the August decision headline inflation was 3.6% and it is expected to remain roughly between 3.5 and 4.0% for the remainder of this year. This is driven in part by inflation in food and energy - the most salient prices - and comes after a long period of relatively high inflation. This increases the risk of an inflation persistence scenario such as the one we considered in May."
- "It is less clear if the disinflation process is continuing in services prices"
- "While previous policy restrictiveness continues to weigh on the economy, I am less confident that the current policy stance as embodied in the market curve continues to be meaningfully restrictive. At the time of the August MPC vote, we had reduced rates by 100 basis points and I judged that there might not be that much further to go before the current policy stance is effectively neutral. Looking at history, it’s plausible that neutral may be closer to the upper end of the 2-4% range from Bank analysis. If so, this would mean we don’t have many more rate cuts to go as we potentially approach the end of the cutting cycle. I am not predicting that we are already at neutral, but nor am I confident that if we reduce restrictiveness much further we will still be sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to target sustainably."