Category Archives: Business

Britain, Business, Government, History, Politics, Society

A Royal Mail sell off makes business sense but there are risks…

ROYAL MAIL PRIVATISATION

In a world that is fundamentally different to that of the 1980s, the announcement by the Government this week that it will proceed with a £3 billion sale of Royal Mail, is the right way forward for the business if it is to survive. Margaret Thatcher baulked at the prospect and was, famously, a privatisation too far. Mrs Thatcher remarked in the Eighties that she was ‘not prepared to have the Queen’s head privatised’. Later, Michael Heseltine, and more recently, Peter Mandelson, had their privatisation plans for Royal Mail scuppered by dissenting MPs in the House of Commons.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, however, notified the Stock Exchange this week of the Government’s intention to float the company, which will probably take place in November. The announcement represents a further expression of economic confidence as the economy slowly recovers from a deep and difficult 5-year recession. The privatisations of British Gas and British Airways, some three decades ago, coincided with a rising tide of opportunism. The parallels are noticeable as that is beginning to be felt once more.

The sale of Royal Mail affords something similar, too, to those earlier flotations: the spread of share ownership. More than 15,000 employees are to receive 10 per cent of the shares, with the rest being offered to institutional investors and ordinary members of the public.

While not without risks, the Government’s plan does have much to recommend it. Royal Mail has suffered from both chronic under-investment and deep-rooted inflexibility as the world around it has radically changed. Royal Mail is heavily unionised and has lumbered on, but the effect has been missed opportunities on a vast scale as rivals have been able to compete on the more lucrative parcel-delivery markets, even as the digital revolution and e-mail decimated traditional letter deliveries.

Moya Green, who took over in 2010, has brought Royal Mail back into the black, which was largely helped by the Government’s takeover of its £5 billion pension deficit. Following the flotation and barring unforeseen disasters, the first dividends, totalling £133 million, will be paid in July.

Despite the Government’s plan and opportunity, the Communication Workers Union has responded in time-honoured fashion by threatening to strike. How it envisages industrial action will help its members or Royal Mail is not wholly clear. The CWU will be holding a strike ballot early next month to protest against potential changes in pay and conditions.

Some of the union’s wider concerns will be shared by many, such as the protection of minimal universal services, guaranteeing a six days-a-week service at a uniform and affordable tariff. This has after all been the hallmark of Royal Mail since its inception and is much prized. But the legislation underpinning the privatisation, which passed through Parliament two years ago, protects the universal service and will remain enshrined in law. That guarantee has been reaffirmed by the Government following its announcement to privatise.

The digital and communication revolution has hit Royal Mail hard, with a fall of 10 million in the volume of letters sent daily. That decline has been arrested to some extent because of the huge increase in goods that are ordered online and need to be delivered.

The benefits of privatisation should not be underplayed. A fleeter-footed business, no longer restricted by government investment rules and with access to private capital, will be better placed to undertake the sweeping modernisation and rationalisation the organisation still needs to go through if it is to compete and vie for business successfully. Upon being privatised, Royal Mail would then not have to compete for scarce government funding which it currently does against other government departments and budgets, such as schools, hospitals, and the police.

But there are risks. The most immediate is that the shares are sold too cheaply, repeating the mistakes of previous flotations and leaving taxpayers cheated and resentful. Over the longer term, the challenge will be a regulatory one. Though it is almost certain that the Royal Mail will continue to be bound by the universal service obligation mandating a six-day nationwide postal delivery – bar senior management tinkering with a system that could loosen some of those ties – what is unclear is how such a costly service will be funded in the future. There may be hope that booming business elsewhere, such as through online shopping, will enable cross-subsidy funding. Critics have warned of unaffordable hikes in stamp prices or even state bailouts.

Mrs Thatcher’s unwillingness to sell off Royal Mail was not only a sentimental attachment to tradition, but sprang from a hard-headed assessment of the political pitfalls of tampering with a venerable national institution. While such hazards remain, a flotation of the Royal Mail is the right decision for the Treasury, and arguably the right decision for the organisation.

In predictable style, Labour has denounced the sale – yet, it was the last government that ended the Royal Mail monopoly and opened up the postal market to competition, thereby making the eventual privatisation inevitable.

Royal Mail can be categorised as one of the foundation stones of the modern British state, one that can trace its origins to 1516, when Henry VIII established the office of Master of the Posts. For it to remain an important part of the national story, it now needs to be a commercially viable venture that is ready and willing to compete in a market with far different demands and pressures.

Standard
Banking, Britain, Business, Economic, Finance, Financial Markets, Government, Society

Bank of England Governor turns fire on bankers…

BANK REFORM

… The bank governor is determined to prevent a Japan-style economic crisis in the UK.

The new Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has launched a stinging attack on ‘socially useless’ bankers and has called for a ‘change of culture’ in the industry.

The former Golden-Sachs executive, who succeeded Lord King as governor of the Bank of England last month, hit out at self-obsessed bankers who are, he says, detached from reality.

The Canadian has also defended the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a move that looks set to see rates remaining at 0.5 per cent for at least another three years.

Mr Carney expressed ‘tremendous sympathy’ for savers who have ‘done the right thing’ but insisted drastic action was needed to ‘secure the recovery’ and prevent a Japanese-style economic crisis in Britain.

This followed his announcement last week that the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) will not raise rates from o.5 per cent until unemployment falls to 7 per cent or lower. Unemployment is currently running at 7.8 per cent and is not expected to reach the new threshold until the end of 2016.

Turning his fire on the banking industry, Mr Carney said:

… There has to be a change in the culture of these institutions.

He said that ‘finance can absolutely play a socially useful and economically useful function’, but added it must focus on ‘the real economy’. The Bank governor said banking is ‘socially useless’ when it becomes ‘disconnected’ from the economy and society and ‘only talks to itself’.

Mr Carney, who is also chairman of global banking watchdog the Financial Stability Board, added:

… A lot of what we are doing internationally is to strip out this type of behaviour.

The Canadian said the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a tactic known as ‘forward guidance’ by central banks – would boost the economy by ‘more than half a percentage point of GDP’ over the next three years.

Amid a fierce backlash from savers he insisted low rates were required to ensure the economy finally recovers from the biggest boom and bust in history.

‘The best way to get interest rates back to normal levels is to have a strong economy,’ he said. ‘We’re in the very early stages of a recovery from the weakest period on record.’

He said Japan made two mistakes after its recession in the early 1990s – failing to fix the banking system and pulling back from measures to stimulate the economy too quickly.

… As a consequence, almost a quarter of a century later, interest rates are still at rock bottom levels in Japan… We don’t want to make those mistakes here in the UK.

COMMENT

Mark Carney’s predecessor, Lord King, started a hard line on the need for banks to reform their cultural practices, by being useful contributors to society and by insisting that they strengthen their balance sheets so they no longer expose the taxpayer to excessive risk.

In some recesses of the banking sector, the appetite for running their operations on wafer-thin levels of capital remained undiminished by the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen.

Some in the City of London had hoped that Mr Carney would administer a snub to King by letting off bankers more lightly.

Given the governor’s role as chairman of the Financial Stability Board, and his personal championing of higher leverage ratios whilst at the Bank of Canada, that always seemed improbable – and so, thankfully, it has proved.

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has defended the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a move that looks set to see rates remaining at 0.5 per cent for at least another three years.

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has defended the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a move that looks set to see rates remaining at 0.5 per cent for at least another three years.

In his first public pronouncement on the subject Mr Carney made it crystal clear that he, no less than King, wants the banks to start serving the real economy instead of just themselves. He made a point of praising King’s work in improving bank balance sheets and of name-checking Andrew Bailey, who heads the Prudential Regulation Authority, the body that controversially forced Barclays and Nationwide to raise more capital.

The governor’s backing for the moves to make these two financial institutions formulate credible plans to increase their base capitals can longer be in question.

The great myth put about by the banking lobby is that higher levels of capital automatically constrain their ability to lend to households and firms and so hold back growth at a time when the economy is weak.

Whilst this seems to be a notion that has been swallowed wholesale by some in the Treasury and the Department of Business, it is not true.

Banks can improve their capital position by retaining earnings, scaling down bonuses and cutting back on other types of less socially useful business.

The new rules will, over the long-term, increase lending to the real economy, not harm it, and will give us safer and more secure banks, which can only be good for stability and growth.

Undoubtedly, there are plenty of questions over Mr Carney’s big idea of forward guidance, from the impact it will have on savers and on pensions, the risks to inflation and the distinct absence of a clear message due to the get-out clauses.

But on bank reform and conditions for capital holdings, Mr Carney should be applauded.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government, Society

Zero-hours employment contracts should be reformed, not outlawed…

ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS

In 2008 there were around 100,000 people employed on ‘zero-hours’ contracts offering them no guarantee of day-to-day work. That number has steadily risen since. In the last few days the Office for National Statistics upped its previous estimate by a quarter to 250,000. Other sources have quoted the figure nearer to one million, which equates to more than 3 per cent of the labour market.  Such employer tactics are not just restricted to sectors with sharply fluctuating demand such hospitality; the NHS, Amazon and large retail outlets such as sportsdirect.com also use them.

Employers benefit from arrangements under which they have a contingent workforce on call but must pay only when it is active. Some employees will appreciate the flexibility too, earning at times sums of money that may help them in their work-life balance, particularly as zero-hour contracts fluctuate with the seasons. More importantly still, in times of economic and financial uncertainty, when companies might otherwise not be hiring, it is better to have unpredictable and unsociable hours than no job at all. For small firms, in particular, such adaptability by having a flexible workforce will be a crucial factor for survival.

The problem, though, is that too often zero-hours contracts are a licence for employer exploitation. Commonly registered complaints include employees being required to be permanently available, despite there being no certainty of work. Many staff are also displeased with no entitlement to standard benefits such as maternity pay, sick pay or pension contributions. Holiday pay is another contentious area, although some firms offer discretionary holiday payments for some staff employed on zero-hours.

There is also an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of individual departmental managers, who may allocate hours or withdraw them according to personal preference. In theory, at least, workers may turn down work, but most assume – probably rightly – that such a refusal would mean no further offers, with little or no hope of redress.

As estimates of the working-based concept inexorably rise, there have been calls for zero-hours contracts to be banned. The Business Secretary, Vince Cable MP – who is reviewing the situation – is resisting such moves. He is right to do so. The issue is not so much the contracts themselves, but more as to how and why they are used.

Consider a case in point: social care. Social care has long been disproportionately reliant on zero-hours contract arrangements because government funding is way too low to pay anything but meagre wages. As the population ages, and more people are expected to live longer into retirement, the situation will only worsen. By banning them, is to allow the specifics of one, very particular sector to skew a policy affecting all.

There are things, however, that should be done. The first priority for the Business Secretary will be to establish the true scale of the issue, and there is a strong case for reform. For instance, staff required to be always ‘on call’ should be compensated given the inconvenience involved. Basic employee rights should also be enforced. It might also be argued that businesses above a certain size, such as 50 employees, should be required by law to provide a minimum number of hours. For larger companies, what excuse do they have for passing on risks they can well afford?

It should come as no surprise that the number of zero-hours contracts has risen significantly since the recession of 2008. Economic stagnation has forced many firms to cut their workforces, but have required a degree of flexibility in the knowledge that expansion and growth would return. But as the outlook improves, it is essential that staff are given more typical terms. If the current spike in zero hours terms is no cyclical occurrence but, instead, is an emergence of a new and insecure, low-paid workforce, then the price of flexibility being asked of people will be too high.

Standard