Category Archives: Financial Markets

Banking, Britain, Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Politics, Society

Financial deregulation of the City: too risky by far

BRITAIN

THE UK Government has launched a consultation about whether it is time to lighten the rules governing alternative asset managers, including private equity and hedge funds, in the belief that doing so will boost growth.

That is radical because, in its desire to ensure the City of London remains attractive post-Brexit, the government seems to have forgotten one of the major lessons of the 2008 financial crisis: when regulation is lax, risks accumulate. And there is little evidence to support this idea, but every reason to think it could exacerbate systemic risks.

The proposal is consistent with the Treasury’s belief that expanding the financial sector will deliver economic prosperity. It has suggested that post-crisis regulations went “too far”. Those regulations included an EU directive targeting alternative investment funds. Before 2008, these funds operated mostly in the dark. There was no means of systematically tracking the leverage they were using, nor the dangers this might pose.

Under the EU rules, leveraged funds managing Euros100m or more in assets had to comply with strict reporting requirements and hold enough capital to absorb losses. The Chancellor is now considering lifting that threshold to £5bn, which would exempt many funds from the full list of EU rules. It will fall to the Financial Conduct Authority to decide which rules to apply. This is troubling.

The FCA has been instructed to encourage financial “risk-taking”, and the regulator has boasted about slashing “red tape”. Taken together, this sounds like a recipe for recklessness. Though the marketplace for private equity and hedge funds was too small to cause a crisis back in 2008, it has since tripled in size. Many private equity funds have started borrowing from shadow banks, which aren’t subject to the same regulations or capital requirements as normal banks. Others have begun taking on even more debt than usual. The Bank of England raised the alarm about these risky practices in 2023, and has suggested that mainstream banks may be unwittingly exposed to the industry. Hence, these are reasons for more financial oversight and discipline, not less.

If the FCA loosens the rules, fund managers will be less constrained in their dealings. They lobbied to have the EU directive watered down in 2010, and the UK was one of the few countries to oppose the rules. Then, as now, the government wanted to protect the City, believing it to be a goose that lays golden eggs. This antipathy towards financial regulation was a prelude to the “Singapore on Thames” worldview promoted by Brexiters. Hedge fund and private equity managers donated heavily to their cause: a study of Electoral Commission data by the academics Théo Bourgeron and Marlène Benquet revealed some £7.4m was donated to the leave campaign, as opposed to just £1.25m for remain.

The Treasury seems to be of the belief that unless the City gets what it wants, Britain may lose its fund managers to countries such as Luxembourg. There are many reasons to be wary of liberalising finance. One is that it will hinder, rather than help, economic growth. Research suggests that once the sector exceeds a certain size, it starts to become a drag on growth and productivity. A study from the University of Sheffield found that the UK lost out on roughly three years of average GDP growth between 1995 and 2015 thanks to its bloated financial sector. Watering down regulations might be helpful for fund managers who like to take huge risks, but it is hard to see who else would benefit.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Politics

Spring statement 2025: A stage built on myths

BRITAIN

BRITAIN is tightening its belt. The chancellor’s spring statement arrives with the gloomy tone of inevitability. Welfare payments for the sick and disabled will be shrunk, and public services from transport to criminal justice face much leaner times. The language is that of necessity. There is no money. The choices are hard, but unavoidable. So runs the rhetorical script.

The notion that painful cuts are inevitable is political theatre and grandstanding. Either Rachel Reeves knows the constraints are self-imposed – or, more troubling, believes they are real. Last October, she announced £190bn in extra spending, £140bn in additional borrowing, and £35bn more in taxes than previously forecast. The Treasury has expounded upon this by insisting “you can’t pour that amount of money into the state and call it austerity”.

Yes you can. Particularly where tens of billions are siphoned off in debt interest to uphold economic orthodoxy rather than meet social needs. The UK now spends more than £100bn a year on debt interest not because it is financially insolvent, but to a substantial degree because the Bank of England is offloading vast amounts of gilts, bought during quantitative easing, at a loss. The Treasury must cover these losses, while the flood of gilts into financial markets drives up interest rates on new borrowing. This is quantitative tightening (QT), with the state left to foot the bill for soaring interest costs and Bank payouts. Nonetheless, the Office for Budget Responsibility assumes that it will continue, locking in high costs.

This is ideology posing as policy. And it’s far from prudent. No money for free school meals or youth clubs, some parliamentarians warn, yet billions pour into the pockets of bondholders, for the sake of “stability”. Ending QT could redirect that money to public services – a better priority than reassuring markets with symbolic gestures.

If the Bank won’t stop on its own, it must be pushed. Under Gordon Brown, the Central Bank gained its independence in 1998 but included a safeguarding caveat: in “extreme economic circumstances” ministers can override the Bank in the public interest. If £100bn in spending isn’t extreme, what is? QT should be paused. The Bank stands alone among G7 peers in actively selling bonds and demanding Treasury cash to cover paper losses. This is self-defeating in a dangerously volatile world. Gilts could be strategically managed. Before New Labour, Kenneth Clarke often ignored the Bank’s advice – and was often right. But such thinking is now deemed heretical in a political culture that treats Central Bank independence as sacred, even when it deepens and exasperates public hardship.

The deeper irony cannot be lost on anyone. The chancellor refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, will not relax her fiscal rules, and has ruled out borrowing more. So she claims that there is no alternative to cuts. Yet, these are self-imposed constraints – combined with deference to an unelected monetary authority – that sustain the illusion of necessity. Labour has been here before: Snowden did the same in the 1930s, and very nearly destroyed his party.

The spring statement is a performance. She asks the public to accept a diminished state as the result of external forces, when actually it’s the result of internal dogma. Worse, she may believe the script – failing to recall the economic tools once used to steer interest rates, debt, and public investment. Austerity isn’t the price of prudence, but the cost of forgetting. We have a chancellor of the exchequer who wears the mask of making tough decisions, but on a stage built on myths. The better choice would be to trim the Bank’s power, even if the spotlight has been carefully trained away from its damaging role.

Standard
Banking, Britain, Economic, Financial Markets, Government

Brexit: Economic shocks can be positive

BRITAIN: ECONOMIC

A NO DEAL BREXIT would be an economic shock on the scale of quitting the gold standard for a second time in 1931, the 1967 devaluation of the pound and being ousted from the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) in September 1992.

But such shocks, if they trigger the right policy response, don’t necessarily have to be negative.

That is why it is fascinating that the Cabinet Office is now contemplating about what “Project After” Brexit actions should be.

It should come as no surprise, then, that both the Bank of England and the Treasury have similar thoughts.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 referendum to leave the EU, Mark Carney played a central role in shaping fiscal policy. Interest rates were cut by a quarter of a percentage point, a £60bn round of quantitative easing (QE) was launched and an emergency £100bn line of credit for the banking system was created.

In the event of a No Deal Brexit the Bank should be able to do more. Threadneedle Street is known to believe, however, that monetary easing becomes less effective with each successive episode.

Brexit poses more of a shock to the supply-side of the economy. That means fiscal and trade actions could be more effective.

The Government – and the Chancellor Philip Hammond – is in the fortunate position of having the fiscal space to act. The budget deficit has been dramatically reduced, but debt at 81.5pc of output, and falling, remains high. Compared to Italy, Japan and the US, it is far less threatening.

Post the financial crisis, markets are much more tolerant of debt, and low interest rates mean that it is more easily serviced.

What should the Treasury do? The case for speeding up infrastructure spending, particularly in the North, with HS3 across the Pennines a priority, is indisputable, as is the need for better and improved commuter routes into Manchester, Leeds and other northerly centres.

The most direct and easiest way of shoring up confidence would be to cut taxes. Corporation tax has already been reduced quite sharply to 19pc and is due to fall to 17pc in 2020. The reduction to 17pc could be made with immediate effect and it may be the opportunity to go even further, if not down to Ireland’s 12.5pc. Gaining a competitive edge is going to become increasingly prescient.

The best way of putting cash directly into the pockets of all consumers would be to lower VAT from the current 20pc back to 17.5pc, or even 15pc, on at least a temporary basis.

Most of the doomster predictions about Britain’s prospects post Brexit have related to international trade and shortages of vital imports such as pharmaceuticals.

 

DREDGING Ramsgate harbour might help. But within international commerce, money speaks the loudest. If Britain were to cut all tariff barriers and import duties to the bone, global enterprises would rapidly deploy their best logistical skills to make sure the shelves in NHS hospitals, pharmacies and supermarkets are fully stocked.

Such policies might seem extreme. One of the biggest concerns is that with parts of the economy already operating at near-to-full capacity, too much fiscal and monetary easing might unleash an inflationary bubble which would be difficult to burst.

Renewing and creating new infrastructure is the number one priority with new runways at not just Heathrow, but Gatwick, part of that.

But when, as Remain supporters like to say, the country is on a cliff-edge and social cohesion is threatened, it is important to think outside the box.

Standard