The ECB, QE and the waiting game

The ECB, QE and the waiting game

12 Feb 2015

Quantitative easing is a process by which a central bank buys relatively safe assets (mostly government bonds) and thereby puts cash into the hands of the newly-ex owners of those assets. In the early years of the financial crisis, this was effectively a life-support system for financial institutions which, post-Lehman Brothers, looked like they might fall domino-style. As the central bank bids up asset prices it creates a rising tide that floats many boats. One side effect of this is that the wealthy become wealthier. QE is quite tricky to justify from this point of view. If it is necessary to prevent the collapse of the banking system it is a jagged pill that needs to be swallowed. As I have written before, this is broadly how the Bank of England justified QE in 2009. “Purchases of assets by the Bank of England could help to improve liquidity in credit markets that are currently not functioning normally.” But gradually, while the music remained the same the lyrics changed. Expressing an idea that was essentially imported from the US, the justification from the Bank in 2011 was quite different. “The purpose of the purchases was and is to inject money directly into the economy in order to boost nominal demand.” You see what they did there? Once again, it was party time in financial markets. Bonds and equities were rising nicely. Bonds were rising because the Bank was buying them and other people were buying them because the Bank was buying them and equities were rising because they looked cheap compared to bonds. And property in the areas where financial people live began to go up again, despite the fact that prices appeared to require mortgages that quite high incomes could not plausibly service and that damaged banks could not reasonably be expected to offer. My friends and I have done splendidly from this once we had “got it”. And although I don’t know any influential people, some of my friends do. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but these influential people soon popped up all over the place saying how brave and wise central bankers were to extend QE. THE HIGH MORAL...

The paradoxical results of education for the masses

The paradoxical results of education for the masses

2 Dec 2014

The Churchill wartime government was kicked out by the electorate less than three months after the German surrender in May 1945. Labour won a huge majority and set about a radical socialist programme of nationalisation of key industries and the creation of the NHS and the welfare state. That story is quite well known. What will surprise many people now is that Churchill’s government managed to pass one dramatically progressive piece of parliamentary law in 1944: Rab Butler’s Education Act. There would be free education for all with selection at the age of 11. Children who passed the 11 Plus were eligible for places in grammar schools – it was intended that the top 25% should reach that standard. Places for the other children were to be offered at either secondary modern schools or technical schools which specialised in scientific and mechanical skills. Sadly technical schools were expensive and hard to staff and there were few set up. This gradually created the impression that the majority of children “failed” at the age of 11 and were sent to schools for underachievers. The 1944 act also allowed for the creation of comprehensive schools that could incorporate all standards. Perhaps grammar schools were burdened with having been promoted by a Conservative politician, but socialist politicians grew to dislike their perceived elitism and the Wilson governments of the 60s and 70s embarked on a determined programme of abolition. This culminated in an education act in 1976 which stated that state education “is to be provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude.” The class warrior secretary of state for education leading this was Shirley Williams (St Paul’s School for girls and Somerville College, Oxford). It is a matter of wonder that the most privileged members of the establishment tend to be dismissive of grammar schools and the upwards social mobility that they seem to offer. Our Old Etonian Prime Minister called arguments about grammar schools “splashing around in the shallow end of the educational debate” and “clinging on to outdated mantras that bear no relation to the reality of...

The dead constituency

The dead constituency

24 Sep 2014

There is a widespread view in what passes for middle-England that people have a right to leave their wealth to their descendants. It seems odd that, in a country where demonising privilege has persisted as a mainstream political sport, we mostly seem to be more than comfortable with the idea that success or fortune should pass from one generation to another. But it turns out that even ideological turkeys do not vote for Christmas. “According to May 2014 research by Skipton Financial Services Limited, 48pc of under 40s expect to receive a large inheritance from their parents. Of these people, one in five are banking on an inheritance to get onto the housing ladder, and 17pc are relying on it because they have no pension set up. Other stated reasons for hoping for an inheritance include starting a family.” Daily Telegraph, 1 Sept 2014 Accordingly, politicians are frightened of this subject. David Cameron has called the desire to pass on your (hard-earned, responsibly saved) money to your children as “the most natural human instinct of all”. It’s parenthood from beyond the grave. It was reported that in 2007 the opposition Conservatives scared off Gordon Brown from calling a snap general election by pledging to raise the inheritance tax threshold from £325,000 to £1 million. Although Labour pointed out that this was a policy designed to benefit a relatively few relatively wealthy families, it backed off in the face of evidence that the Conservative pledge was popular. (To this day it remains no more than a pledge – it did not survive the coalition government). At present, the law says that an individual may leave £325,000 tax free above which level the rest of the estate is taxed at 40%. At first glance this is generous. Then one looks at UK property prices, particularly those in London and the South East. The average property price in London is now £499,000, in the rest of the South East it is £326,000 (source: ONS, June 2014). If the “family home” is worth the London average of £500,000, it will be liable to £70,000 of inheritance tax when the last exempt person (e.g. spouse or civil partner) has...

Jittery January

Jittery January

6 Feb 2014

“The bond markets are suggesting that we are looking at a fairly gentle, low inflation recovery.” The dangerously alluring feeling of comfort that I wrote about in my Q4 report did not last long. Major stock markets have fallen this year: FTSE -4%, Dow Jones -6%, Nikkei -13%. Many financial commentators are saying that this is the result of weakness in emerging markets which are in danger of being starved of investment dollars as the Federal Reserve continues its tapering policy. Even writing that makes me feel slightly ridiculous. It is typical of the confusing non-explanations offered by the financial services industry, helping only to encourage ordinary punters in the belief that all this is far too hard for them to understand. “Emerging markets” is an inherently biased way of referring to exotic countries in need of investment.  The term seems to have been invented in the 1980s. According to Wikipedia, prior to that the label Less Developed Countries (LDCs) was used. In 2012, the IMF identified 25 emerging markets. For the record: Argentina;  Brazil; Bulgaria; Chile; China; Colombia; Estonia; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Latvia; Lithuania; Malaysia; Mexico; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Romania; Russia; South Africa; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; Venezuela Note, sadly, that that the only African country is RSA. Looking again at the list, if you are particularly attached to democracy, private ownership rights or tolerance of homosexuality, you might find the thought of investing in some of these countries hard to digest. You might also ask how many countries have succeeded in emerging since the 1980s. The answer to that would appear to be zero. Foreign investment in emerging markets tends to be tidal: it flows in and it flows out again (if it can). Why then should this concern the risk-averse investor? There are two reasons, one specific and one general. The specific reason is that businesses in which we might be invested could be hit by diving emerging market economies. Global companies that sell consumer products are especially prone to this. Last week, Diageo the drinks company reported weakness in China and Nigeria. The general reason is that nervousness is infectious (especially in the banking industry). Undoubtedly, we have both these...

Our house…..the place where we live….and die?

Our house…..the place where we live….and die?

9 Jan 2013

Those of us who have lived, nested, spawned etc in and around the South East of England generally consider ourselves to be experts in local property prices. It may be that UK residents do not realise that in some quite civilised parts of the world, houses are primarily regarded as places to live rather than investments. But this is an investment website, so let’s have a look at UK property as a financial investment proposition for 2013 and beyond. As I point out in the Investment Rules (e.g. the Value section), the easiest way to check the value of something is to compare it with itself over time. From Q1 2000 to Q3 2012, UK house prices are +113% (source: data from the Office of National Statistics at http://www.ons.gov.uk). Overall, despite the financial crisis and the widely reported difficulties of first-time buyers, investment in UK housing has had a sound century so far. The average UK house price stands at £231,000 (£187,000 excluding London and the South East). We might learn more by extending the time period. When we go back all the way to 1970, we find that average house prices multiplied by a factor of 45 times. In the 1970s, the price of the average UK house rose by 390%; in the 1980s by 203%; in the 1990s (which included a house price “collapse” that saw a large number of repossessions) by a mere 45% and in the 2000s by 107%: all that, and somewhere to live thrown in. Politicians are fond of talking about “affordable” housing (presumably to distinguish themselves from the radicals who are demanding more unaffordable housing). One might think that they favour a general fall in the price of property but, if they do, they haven’t said so in my hearing. Property owners have votes and tend to use them. There again, I find it hard to believe that anyone wants financial institutions to plunge back into offering 100% mortgages with initial teaser rates in order that new buyers can support current market levels. No doubt the best long-term answer would be for average earnings to rise more quickly than average house prices. A crude measure of affordability...