Reply from Annika Winsth: My credibility lies in my independence

Reply from Annika Winsth My credibility lies in my independence

On June 9, DN’s lead writer Arvid Åhlund writes that journalists should stop cheating with bank economists, where I highlight as an example.

When Åhlund embarks on the analysis of monetary policy and its consequences, it is surprising that the text does not take its starting point in the economic situation, which is the basis for bank economists’ and my advice. The tone is recognizable from social media. This is not what I expected from an editorial writer at Sweden’s largest morning newspaper. The text lacks constructive criticism, but below I make some attempts to clarify my view.

The one who examines the mortgage rates I have written find that they have sometimes benefited the banking business and at other times been less good from a banking perspective. Credibility lies in independence and my bank has for decades allowed me to express myself based on the financial situation.

Åhlund believes that my analysis points to a higher interest rate than the Riksbank’s forecast. If anyone has corrected the forecasts recently, it is the Riksbank, which also has several scenarios. The forecast my bank has made is in line with the Riksbank’s alternative scenario and market expectations. Nordea’s forecast is actually more cautious than the Riksbank’s alternative scenario next year.

Advice for mortgage borrowers has long been easy as the advantageous and historically low fixed interest rate was below the variable 3-month interest rate. Few journalists highlighted it, they rather suggested that bank economists gave the advice to lock in customers. Those who chose to listen have made a good deal with today’s interest rates. An advice that would have been good about lead writers that Åhlund highlights.

In a future uncertain situation, it is wise not to put your head in the sand.

Åhlund writes that economists who join punish themselves. I have been writing Nordea’s mortgage interest rate forecasts since the mid-1990s. They continue to arouse interest as they are quoted and used month after month, year after year. Possibly even lead writers who do not do their homework punish themselves. We will see if it is Åhlund or I who loses the public’s trust first.

dny-general-01