26 Jan 2024

I forgot who it was who said that he wasn’t afraid of flying but of landing. The same philosophy may be applied to borrowing. Borrowing is rather like flying – rewarding, useful and even exhilarating. The scary part is landing the debt and returning it to its hangar. It is worth asking why the US seems uniquely able to borrow with impunity compared to other countries which feature at various stops on the slope downwards to habitual insolvency. I would argue that the three main impediments to foreign investment anywhere are distrust of a government, distrust of its currency and, recently, distrust of the reliability of energy supply. There is one policy that Presidents Trump and Biden appear to share – that if you want to sell in America you need to manufacture in America: and according to UN investment data, the rest of the world is happy to fall in line. Despite apparently going along with the COP religious movement, Biden’s government has been careful to continue America’s pursuit of cheap and independent energy and to be a willing exporter of LNG to the world. In 2022 the US became the leading exporter of LNG and, to the horror of the lobbying organisation Covering Climate Now, a “massive expansion” of export terminals is proposed. “Taken together, if all US projects in the permitting pipeline are approved, they could lead to 3.9 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is larger than the entire annual emissions of the European Union,” wrote a group of scientists in an open letter to Biden in December urging the president to halt the expansion. . Source: coveringclimatenow.org STOP PRESS : President Biden has just “paused” new export licences. Lobbying works, sometimes. Financing public spending by borrowing feels irresponsible. Politicians rarely dare to advocate it. Instead, they do it stealthily. In the US the Biden administration launched the comically named Inflation Reduction Act to lend a sense of responsible purpose to its continuing accumulation of a debt pile now standing at $34 trillion (it was $10 trillion in 2000). Before we believers in prudent finance throw up our hands in horror we must be quite clear about why...

16 May 2023

Ever since the Global Financial Crash of 2008/9, some commentators have worried that there are too many “zombie” companies that are unable to make a profit or even a self-sustaining cash flow, but which are being kept alive by the availability of cheap credit. The argument goes that in a truly capitalist world, the unviable would die and their market share would be swallowed up by companies more deserving of success.   It must be said that in today’s world, where the political centre is so far left of where it used to be, many people would approve of the use of public money to help struggling businesses. Let’s face it, there is no use of public money incapable of attracting support from someone.  UBER But the extent to which “zombie” businesses have become established household names is quite astonishing. The Oscar arguably goes to Uber which most people would regard as the epitome of a disruptive (a horribly overused word) success. Uber’s IPO price in 2019 was $45 and today it trades at $38. In the last five years it has made operating losses of $22.2 billion on revenues of $85.9 billion. In aggregate it has lost 25 cents for every dollar of fare.  The fact that the share price is still as high as $38 tells us that Uber is well funded. Its fixed borrowings mature from 2025 to 2029 and it pays an interest rate of c.7% on average. Maybe that’s all fine. Many, many people are happy and trusting customers and have no doubt been delighted to be subsidised at the expense of Uber shareholders and creditors.  Yet, how about the taxi drivers and cab companies that have been forced out of business by Uber’s comprehensive yet (so far) financially unsustainable service? This disruption of the taxi world  is not an unmitigated boon.   OCADO  Back in the UK, how lucky we were during Covid lockdowns to have Ocado bringing groceries to the doors of the sheltering furloughed classes. Householders pinned notes to their front doors saying “Dear delivery driver. Please leave the package in the porch, ring the front door bell for five seconds and then retreat back to the world...

21 Apr 2023

The first quarter saw a limited banking crisis, including the demise of the wounded Swiss champion Credit Suisse, but otherwise there was not much to see. The FTSE 100 managed to rise by 2.4%, again doing better than the more domestically-based FTSE 250 (+0.4%). Government bond yields were also largely unchanged in the UK and Germany but lower in the US (3.6% vs 3.9%) where inflation is more obviously falling. It was a curious incident of the dog in the night time quarter – despite much noise about failing banks and impending recessions, the markets snoozed their way through.  For an investor, something not happening is every bit as significant as something happening.  My theory is that large corporations are more comfortably in bed with governments than has ever been the case. Due to the explosion of government borrowing and spending since the “great financial crisis” of 2008-9 and the doubling down that occurred with lockdowns. Governments are the most important customers and, as we know, the customer is always right.  Corporate lobbying may be unedifying but it appears to be annoyingly successful. Politicians who take a principled stand tend to find themselves maligned as borderline mentally ill if they cross an agreed line delineating agreed public/private interests.  As Groucho Marx said, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”  Essentially, the governments of the US, UK and Europe have huge patronage at their disposal and it is hardly surprising that big business knows where to find it.  This is what is sometimes called Crony Capitalism, defined as – An economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government...

28 Sep 2022

The rapidly falling pound sterling is, according to the opposition coalition of political and media commentators, proof that confidence in the three week old Truss administration is fading away. There are certainly plenty of economists saying that the chancellor’s tax cuts will not stimulate growth and that, whatever, it’s all not fair. The Bank of England is probably wondering whether to raise the bank rate to defend sterling, though it will also be nervous that any indications of panic will make things worse. The gilts market is anyway taking the decision out of its hands. Two year government paper yields 4%. The Bank of England does not command the rates at which actual transactions take place in the real world. I suggest that the Bank continues its policy of pretending to be a cork in a jacuzzi. I have written many (many) times about the remarkable growth of UK government borrowing and how the costs were artificially disguised by the QE through which the Bank of England, as an agent of the Treasury, purchased gilts in the open market while the same Bank of England sold new gilts on behalf of the same Treasury. It really was as circular as that. It must be time to quote Lewis Carroll. “But it’s no use now,” thought poor Alice, “to pretend to be two people! Why, there’s hardly enough of me left to make one respectable person!” While QE was still in operation (until the end of last year) there was an implicit market agreement to see no folly, hear no folly and speak no folly. The wonder is not that the gilts market is being yanked back to reality now but that it spent so many years in a hallucinogenic stupor. The Bank of England bought £445 billion of gilts to smooth over the fallout from the subprime crisis and Brexit and a further £450 billion to fund lockdown. Due to the fact that it drove prices up and paid top dollar it lost £112 billion on its transactions (a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there – whatever) which means, to be clear, that it lost that money on our behalf. And, to be...

8 Jul 2022

The FTSE 250 fell by 11.8% in Q2 and was down by 20.5% in the first half. For the FTSE 100 those numbers were -4.6% and -2.9% respectively. The message was that the big international companies were relatively unscathed but the more domestically exposed businesses flashed a big warning about recession or worse.  It was only to be expected that government bond yields, with less central bank support than before and gathering inflation, would rise and so they did. By mid June, UK 10 year gilt yields jumped from 1.6% to 2.65%, US treasuries from 2.34% to 3.48% and German Bunds from 0.56% to 1.76%. But in the second half of June, a mini bull market resumed in government bonds. On 1 July, UK yields were back down to 2.06%, US to 3.02% and German to 1.2%. On the face of, the bond markets are now more frightened of recession than inflation.  Consistent with this, despite the front page news about inflation and wage demands and threatened strikes, most commodity prices are well off their highs. Oil is +39% this year but was up 73% in March. Wheat is +23% but was up by 56% in May. The near certainty of rising prices for aluminium and copper has turned into falls of 13% and 19% respectively year to date. There has probably been stockpiling by producers as well as the self-inflicted closure of much of the Chinese economy. One should also remember that the monetary splurge that accompanied lockdowns probably filled the savings of the professional classes very nicely. History may record that this was a huge and regrettable transfer of resources in the wrong direction i.e. from the relatively poor to the relatively well off. Whatever one thinks, it is notable that the summer holidays are marked not by complaints of price gouging by holiday companies (though there is some of that if you were a regular user of Eurotunnel) but by the scandal of not enough flights to transport those who sport pale skins to the sun.  I note also that despite the threat or probability of costlier mortgages, UK house prices rose at an annual rate of 13% in June. Once...

4 Apr 2022

The stock market trend that began in Q4 accelerated in Q1. The FTSE 100, with its big oil, gas and mining shares, rose by 1.8% while the FTSE 250, mostly populated with companies that use those products as raw materials, lurched down by 9.9%. I cannot recall such a divergence between those two indices in a single quarter. Despite this, the bond market action was more dramatic still. Ten year UK Gilt yields rose from 0.97% to 1.6% as purchases by the Bank of England ceased. In the US, 10 year Treasuries yielded 1.51% on 31 December and 2.34% at the quarter end. The German 10 year Bund yield rose from -0.18% to 0.56%. Despite the serious risk that Putin, net zero and raw material prices will combine to send us back to recessionary times, the main message from government bonds is that inflation is a problem that historically demands high interest rates. The theory that the cost of borrowing should rise in order to discourage speculative investment looks rather thin in today’s circumstances but markets are not famous for looking around corners to see what might lie just out of sight. . Rishi Sunak’s spring financial statement contained the inevitable tax increases that many seem to find unbelievable and the reason for them. The government is now expected to pay interest of £83 billion in 2022/3. This may include losses on its stock of redeeming gilts but even so it is a shocking number implying that the nation is now paying 4% to borrow, which is roughly twice as much as its more solvent citizens. Though the latter can only expect their mortgage rates to rise in turn. The time may have come for the idea that the credit worthiness of all governments is something that must be factored into the usual calculations about the relative cost of...

10 Feb 2022

The rising cost of living is suddenly all over the news. The Bank of England is forecasting that inflation will rise to 7.25%. Transparently ineffective and arguably misleading measures have been taken to mitigate the raising of the ridiculous energy price cap. Talking of ineffective, the Governor of the Bank of England is calling for pay restraint. Excellent. Political commentators have called for the abandonment of April’s proposed rise in the rate of national Insurance on the simplistic grounds that people will actually have to pay it. This is not unusual in the case of taxes. No one wins votes by being in favour of them. For some reason the Chancellor seems to have persuaded the Prime Minister to hold his nerve, for now. It’s almost as if Rishi Sunak understands the state of the nation’s finances.  The nagging feeling that something is wrong and that “something must be done” causes excitement when there appears to be the chance to raise someone else’s taxes. Currently there is a call for windfall taxes for the oil companies who have had the effrontery to recoup in 2021 what they lost in 2020. BP and Shell are preparing to pay $16 billion in tax between them as it is (not all to the UK treasury) and the dividends they pay will be received by the pension funds that most of us own, directly or indirectly.  The truth is that the scale of the national debt is too intimidating for proper public discussion.   At the end of December the value of gilts in circulation was £2,011 billion (just over £2 trillion, as people like to say now when they want to intimidate with numbers that are nearly impossible to contemplate) of which 28% have been issued since March 2020 i.e. in large part due to the cost of the response to the pandemic. Over the twenty one Covid months government expenditure has exceeded its receipts by £467 billion and £563 billion has been raised in gilt sales.  It may be that the treasury decided to take advantage of exceptionally low interest rates to sell as many gilts as possible. The reason why rates have been so low for...

15 Dec 2021

There seems to be a puzzling disconnect between the available facts from South Africa about Omicron (that it spreads quickly but has relatively benign health consequences) and the gloomy and even panicky reaction in the UK from the government, the self-appointed “science” and the political opposition, such as it is.  It is almost as if the establishment, if that’s the right word, has an ulterior motive in keeping the fear going, even at the expense of the usual suspects such as children, people with undiagnosed conditions like cancer and, of course, the leisure and travel industries.  As this website is about money, I will speculate about financial motives. Fighting Covid has been extraordinarily expensive. The UK government has borrowed more than £550 billion since April 2020. Clearly this money has gone to some obvious recipients like vaccine manufacturers and the rapacious “approved” PCR testers but also to the NHS, to local councils and in the form of furlough payments to employers of the temporarily unemployed. I don’t suppose that many people associated with any of these groups, the pharma companies aside, actually want the pandemic to continue. But be aware that this is potentially a very big week for the UK Treasury. In March 2020 it was agreed that the Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility could be increased from £445 billion (it was full at the time) by £200 billion and later in the year by another £100 billion and again (in November) by a further £150 billion for a total of £895 billion (popularly known as QE or quantitative easing).  Since April 2020 the Bank has duly bought gilts steadily from institutional holders. We have only the detailed figures up to the end of September but at the consistent rate at which it was operating it should have reached its £895 billion target this very week (13th December). Over that period the Bank purchasing arm has bought £3 of gilts for every £4 that it has issued on behalf of the government. In other words, 75% of this extraordinary borrowing has been funded by what one might call an elaborate accounting trick.    Unless the QE facility is ramped up again, the government...

7 Nov 2021

Q3 was again quite calm in the equity markets. The FTSE rose by 0.7%, quarter-on-quarter, and the domestic orientated FTSE 250 by 2.9%.  It is the bond markets that are relatively volatile. After a rather surprising rally in Q2 (when yields fell) the official message that inflation will be transient began to met with scepticism again in Q3.Government bond yields began to rise again – US treasuries from 1.3% to 1.6% and gilts from 0.6% to 1.1%. At present there is much speculation about whether the Bank of England will raise the Bank Rate from 0.10% to 0.25%. So what? Is a reasonable question. The Bank Rate is the interest that the Bank of England pays to commercial banks when they deposit money with it. The long years of near zero rates are part of a policy to encourage banks to lend. In addition, QE has swamped the private market with cash. The Bank Rate is classically raised in order to discourage excessive lending which leads to overheating and inflation. As a Fed chairman once said, you take away the punchbowl just as the party is getting going.  I find it hard to imagine that interest rates play any significant role in commercial bank decisions at the moment. If the Bank Rate is effectively an opportunity cost of lending it is going to have to be much higher than 0.25% to make any difference. Perceived counterparty risk must be the dominant consideration. The most important factor for the Treasury and the Bank of England is their own borrowing costs. At some point, surely, the government will have to stop borrowing from itself and will need to raise money from savers and investors who will need inducements. Keeping the Bank Rate low will be an irrelevance and won’t stop long dated yields from rising. Roll on the...

9 Jul 2020

In isolation, Q2 was quite good for stock markets. But in the context of what happened in Q1, we are still in the mire with our Wellington boot just out of reach of our hovering, stockinged foot. The FTSE 100 rose by 9% but is still down 17% year on year. The FTSE 250 recovered by 14% in Q2 (having been down 31% in Q1) but is -12% year-on-year. As usual, the All-Share was between the two. It seems fair to say that we are no wiser about the probable economic outcome of the pandemic though we can see that there is a consensus that central banks can print any amount of money on the single condition that they don’t admit that that is what they are doing. In the US it is more explicit because it is more acceptable to say that anything large is too big to fail when it would involve the loss of large numbers of jobs. Even if you are not seeking re-election as President, it is hard to argue against that. The response to Covid-19 is becoming highly political in the UK, despite there being no general election scheduled until 2024. Mass unemployment cannot be deferred indefinitely, even by money printing. Everyone must know this but no one wants to say it – governing politicians are terrified of hard truths unless they can be floated under a halo of brave sacrifice and oppositions bide their time until they can feign shocked surprise at how badly things turned out.   So we are left with a pretend future funded with pretend money.  Pretend money is far from being just a UK phenomenon.  The euro was infamously pretend money before the financial crash. Greece, Italy etc thought that they could borrow extravagantly but cheaply because their euro liabilities were implicitly guaranteed by the ECB. Kyle Bass, who, in around 2008, took long positions in German Bunds matched against shorts of Greek government bonds, called it the greatest asymmetric trade of all time.  Eight years ago this week, Bunds yielded 1.5% and their Greek equivalents 26%. The spread between the two was 24.5% having been around 0.5% when Bass took his position....

26 May 2020

Despite the fact that the UK government appears, like Gilbert’s Duke of Plaza-Toro*, to be leading from behind, I suppose that this fearful fog of indecision will eventually dissipate and some kind of hobbled phoenix will stumble out of the smoking ashes of the economy. In passing, I would like to bestow their share of responsibility on the political opposition, including the trade unions, who constantly urge caution and demand something called “safety” for all, in the calculated knowledge that the worse the economic consequences of lockdown, the worse for the government.  Can they really be that cynical? Oh yes. THE DAMAGE DONE But whether you believe that lockdown was a) catastrophically late or b) completely unnecessary, (and history may one day deliver a verdict but you won’t find it on Twitter this afternoon), a vast amount of economic damage has been done. And the longer paralysis continues, the worse it will be.  And given that the government is now a follower of international decisions rather than a decision maker itself, we must look at the US, Germany, France (!), Sweden and pretty much anywhere else you care to name to see how our future might look.   Donald Trump has an election to win in November. (Ladbrokes still has him as the marginal favourite, which seems surprising). Naturally, he is desperate to get America back to work and, as his son says, make it great again, again. Whether you think he is gambling with people’s lives or trying to save them from destitution actually doesn’t matter. What matters is what has already happened.  The US unemployment rate jumped from 3.5% in February to 4.4% in March to 14.7% in April. That’s 23 million Americans out of work. But it will be more than that. The total of initial unemployment claims is at nearly 39 million by the end of last week. That looks like an unemployment rate closer to 25%, an utterly unimaginable number.  If it turns out that “it’s the economy, stupid” then Trump’s Thanksgiving turkey is cooked unless there is a near-magical recovery. Whatever you think of Trump, and there is no need to say or even think it out loud, a...

29 Mar 2020

On the 23rd of February I published these seemingly prophetic words. SPLENDID ISOLATION Another idea that we are rowing back from is internationalism. To put it another way, nationalism appears to be on the rise wherever you look. A better word might be insularity because this is not primarily about xenophobia. It is mostly an economic phenomenon again. For some reason we don’t really care about global poverty half as much as we care about global warming. Of course I didn’t have the slightest idea of what was about to happen. So sadly this blog is not a description of how I moved all my assets into cash and am now reinvesting at a 30% discount. While the world appears to have been turned upside down in the last four weeks, people everywhere were very already receptive to turning their backs on the rest of the world. And I was too kind when I downplayed the role of xenophobia. Every country seems to want to lie in its own dirt now and in many countries’ foreigners are regarded with suspicion or even hostility.  I am absolutely not referring to the UK, which is a highly diverse and generally welcoming country, but rather to more monocultural nations. I was in Sri Lanka last week just as the country started to go into lock down. Sri Lankans are and were almost uniformly delightful but when I found myself on a crowded bus with many people standing and the seat next to me vacant, no one wanted to sit next to the white man.  There are reports that African countries are wary of Europeans and Mexicans are demanding to be protected from US citizens.   Here is a comment found on Twitter: Today on my final reporting trip in China, my colleague and I are eating when a man walks up: “You foreign trash. Foreign trash! What are you doing in my country? And you, with him, you bitch.” I think he wanted to fight, but we stayed silent and let him rant. Quite the farewell. Poland closed its borders, causing huge disruption to citizens of Baltic states trying to get home. Given how many Poles work abroad,...

14 Nov 2019

On 9 November, Prof. Brian Cox who is a professor of particle physics and a TV and radio presenter responded to the news that credit rating Moody’s downgraded the outlook for the UK’s debt with this Tweet: “Neither Labour nor the Conservatives will be able to borrow all the money they are pledging if international investors take fright.” Pausing only to note that anyone who relied on Moody’s credit ratings probably got wiped out years ago, Prof. Cox’s view does not seem outrageously controversial to me. Yet he was buried by a landslide of comments such as: “Don’t you just love it when experts step out of their areas of expertise and talk bollocks.” In essence the message is that if Brian Cox thinks that interest rates might rise, then he must be an economic dumbo. But the important point is not whether the professor is a financial simpleton or not but that the crowd is so emphatically behind a view that would quite recently have been unthinkable. Groupthink now knows that interest rates will never rise and that governments can borrow whatever they like. Happy days. And talking of financial simpletons, Donald Trump keeps criticising the Federal Reserve because other countries have negative interest rates on their government debt.  “Give me some of that. Give me some of that money. I want some of that money. Our Federal Reserve doesn’t let us do it.” Source: Speech to the Economic Club of New York 12 November 2019 The remarkable fact is that Brian Cox is regarded as the one who “doesn’t get it” whereas President Trump thinks that he is espousing “the new normal”. HOW DID WE GET HERE? How did we get here and what happens if the consensus is as wrong as usual? “I am concerned that this emerging anti-austerity consensus, driven as it is by the desire for perceived “fair” outcomes, could get messy. Meddling is in the air. An outbreak of doing the wrong thing cannot be far off.” Source: CrowKnows “Prepare to turn left” I wrote that exactly two years ago in the post “Prepare to turn left”. It is surely time to follow up because the steering wheel...

18 Oct 2019

This is a follow up to “The crumbling social contract”, written in March 2017. A government that is answerable to the people who elected it has a critical peacetime power that depends entirely on its perceived legitimacy. The power to impose taxes. Where would all those generous spending promises come from if they didn’t have the right to confiscate our money? The UK Parliament’s obligation to pass all taxes into law was conceived as part of the 1689 Bill of Rights which constrained the power of the monarch (James II). The quid pro quo was that the populace would give their consent to be taxed. In practice this means that the people have to believe that the parliament represents them. The slogan “no taxation without representation” is associated with the American Revolution. The colonists objected to paying taxes to the British government which seemed to them, and which was subsequently to become, a foreign power. The debate over the 2016 EU referendum was sometimes claimed (by those who wanted to leave) to be a similar question. They take our money and spend it without consulting us very much. The slogan that helped to win the day was “Take back control”. I think that most of the British public were not particularly concerned about the money. Didn’t Mrs Thatcher get us a rebate once? The attempt by the Remain campaign to turn the referendum into an economic debate, though it continues to this day, was a failure. LOOTERS Recently, though, our MPs have been daring themselves to reinterpret the meaning of democratic representation. They are like looters in the aftermath of a riot. Someone else broke the windows. Surely reaching through and nicking something isn’t such a big crime? If I don’t, someone else will. Some have merely abandoned or if you prefer reinterpreted the manifestos on which their parties stood in 2017. Others have actually changed sides and not one has taken the honourable course of offering themselves back to their voters in a by-election. Every conceivable legal chance has been taken to force through, block, delay or reverse the result of the referendum. No doubt our MPs would say that all’s fair in...

21 Mar 2019

In my round-up of Q4 2018 I mentioned three risks that I intended to keep an eye on. Here are three really bad things that could happen in 2019 or preferably later. 1) London house prices fall by 20% rapidly or 40% gradually (or both) 2) A major issuer of government debt suffers a catastrophic collapse in confidence or actually defaults (will the person who said “China” see me afterwards?) 3) A neo-Marxist garden gnome becomes Prime Minister of Great Britain. Numbers 2) and 3) remain of great interest but now I want to update myself on the developing story of property prices. Two observations are becoming quite well known: the apparent insanity of new high rise apartments shooting up all over Zone 2 London and the decline in turnover of the traditional property market. FLIPPERING HELL The FT had a good article on 20 February entitled “London’s property ‘flippers’ forced to sell at a loss”. Flippers are speculators who buy flats off-plan before construction has begun. It seems that they are often individuals either originating from or actually still living in Asia. They are probably rather ignorant about what they have agreed to buy. According to the FT, someone lost £770,000 buying and selling an uncompleted apartment in One Blackfriars, a monstrous glass eyesore (obviously that’s just my unsophisticated opinion) towering over the Thames (which has surely been punished enough). “In 2014, 21 per cent of resales in recently completed developments were sold at a discount, according to property research company LonRes. Last year that number had more than trebled, to 67 per cent. At the same time, the size of discounts has ballooned. From an average of 2.2 per cent in 2014, to 13.1 per cent last year.” To be brutally frank, most Londoners just find these stories of burnt speculative fingers quite satisfying. Some might say that it’s payback for despoiling our historic city with your greed and ignorance. Others might suggest that this attitude is somewhat hypocritical, given that mutual self congratulation about how much everyone had made on their houses was the backbone of London dinner parties for about three decades. PENSION PURGATORY Over those years many representatives of...

10 Nov 2018

  When I wrote recently about financial  contagion I pointed out that holding cash is an investment. It is effectively a bet against inflation and for political and economic stability. Moreover, holding any currency involves a potential hidden opportunity cost – that of not holding a different currency. On a couple of occasions in my lifetime, the British government has had to abandon a policy of maintaining the level of sterling against another currency; in 1967 against the dollar and in 1992 against the deutschmark. GREAT STERLING DEVALUATIONS OF OUR TIME On the first occasion, following a 14% devaluation, the PM Harold Wilson attracted a certain amount of ridicule for addressing the nation in the following terms. He acknowledged that sterling was worth less “abroad” but said: “That doesn’t mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or bank, has been devalued”. Essentially he said that the pound hadn’t been devalued against the pound. In truth, it wasn’t much of an argument but it relied on the fact that currency losses are largely invisible until people are obliged to make some kind of foreign transaction. I don’t remember the devaluation of 1967 but in 1992, on (Black) Wednesday 16th September I was sitting in a dealing room listening to an open line from the Bank of England’s dealer who repetitively intoned the price at which he was prepared to buy sterling. One of my colleagues told me that the Bank of England dealer always closed for the day at 4.30pm (presumably to catch the 5.07 to Sevenoaks) and wondered what would happen then. What happened is that he did indeed bid everyone a good afternoon and no doubt picked up his briefcase and headed for the door. In the time the world’s only buyer of sterling could have walked to the station, the dam had burst and he had pissed away £3.3 billion, which was real money in 1992. If that sounds like a story of pinstriped establishment incompetence from ancient British history, I must mention that the Bank of England is sitting on paper losses of some £49 billion (my estimate) from the gilts that it has bought...

5 Jul 2018

In Q1 the main UK indexes fell by between 6% and 8%. In Q2, they rose by 7% to 8%. The chart of the first six months is a “V” or perhaps a two-fingered salute to all the financial commentators who claim knowledge of the future. Bond yields again did almost nothing.   I have written elsewhere about the prevailing mood that seems to try to put a pessimistic spin on everything. As a result I would imagine that most people would be amazed to know that shares were so strong in Q2. How could they be in the turmoil of the imminent collapse of international trade, courtesy of the hardball tactics of Mr Trump and M Barnier, l’homme who loves to say “non”? The sole purpose of trade rules is to prevent trade from taking place and that these two gentlemen are both happy to use that threat as what I suppose we must call a negotiating tactic, if we could only tell what it is that they are trying to negotiate. Never mind that. The stock market doesn’t seem very concerned about it. Last quarter I listed thirteen everyday UK shares with markedly high dividend yields. Unsurprisingly, in view of the market performance, you would have done quite nicely if you had bought them. Not a single one of them went bust between April and June, I am pleased to say and the shares of none of them declined. It is better to look at valuations and to ask what they are telling us than to listen to what commentators are actually telling us. How about the yields on government bonds? I have said that there was little change in Q2 (despite innumerable predictions of falling prices) but are there trends and what do the absolute levels tell us? Germany is the benchmark bond for the EU. The ECB will continue its asset buying programme until the end of this year. It is still boosting asset prices by its own version of QE, implying that the crisis that started in 2008 continues. A year ago, 10 year Bunds yielded 0.5%. Now they yield 0.3%. Not many signs of imminent recovery there. Bond yields...

21 Dec 2017

The causes of the financial crisis have not been properly addressed. In particular, the perpetrators are widely and correctly seen as having got away with it. This, in my view, lies behind the populist behaviour that keeps giving us “anti-establishment” election results like Brexit, Trump and Corbyn. That’s the conclusion of this essay. Here are my arguments, looking at what happened in the US, the EU and the UK and the common failures of leadership in all three territories. WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS I think we all know that the financial crisis involved junk debts being packaged by rogues as AAA and sold to idiots. Faults on both sides, no doubt. US officials are relatively good at hammering those considered dispensable. (Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years at the age of 71. That showed him). But the biggest banks were considered “too big to fail”. They operated with an implicit guarantee that, no matter what, they would be bailed out by the state. This was extended to the claim that they were “too big to jail”. It has been said that it would be destabilizing to the financial system if the senior management of a major institution were taken on the “perp walk”, handcuffed in front of a global TV audience. At the same time, the alumni of US investment banks seem to penetrate government at the highest levels. The original bailout was presided over by the Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, once of Goldman Sachs. Also from a Goldman career is the current Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin (there are limits to President Trump’s populism). You can read plenty about Goldman Sachs here. US politicians who complain about the big banks tend to stand out because they are unusual. Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren are portrayed as “progressive liberals” (that’s an insult in establishment parlance) and possibly anti-capitalist or un-American. It is estimated that the US banking lobby spends more than $100 million a year fighting attempts to regulate it.    In 2011 the Occupy Wall Street movement claimed to represent “the 99%” against income inequality and corporate influence. President Obama said perceptively that: “I think it expresses the frustrations the American...

14 Nov 2017

I have been on the town recently. Two weeks ago I went to see Reasons to be Cheerful, a brilliant play based around the music of Ian Dury. It is performed by the Graeae theatre company that featured in the 2012 Paralympics opening ceremony. I saw it when it was produced the first time in 2010 and eagerly returned for more. Ian Dury was to say the least an anti-establishment figure and by today’s standards not politically correct. I’m not sure whether he would have appreciated the fact that a new song was tacked on to the end of the show. “If it can’t be right then it must be wrong” has rather puerile lyrics that I don’t think Ian himself would have written (“Keep the funding flowing from a loving cup”). As the song was played and sung, pictures of various politicians with devil horns sprouting from their heads were flashed onto a screen: Mrs Thatch, natch, David Cameron and, oh look, Tony Blair. But I will let someone else summarise: “This new anti austerity song from Graeae and the Blockheads captures the current mood of the country. Its lyrics bring people together in a moment of shared experience to challenge the status quo.” Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party. There I was watching a play set in 1979 and suddenly the “mood of the country” in 2017 was sprung on me. How did that happen, I wondered. Last week I revisited 1979 for the second time by paying a 2079 price to see Squeeze at the Royal Albert Hall. And it happened again. In between Cool for Cats, Up the Junction and Labelled with Love, the band naturally played songs from their new album. These included Rough Ride which laments the lack of affordable housing in London and A&E which really challenges the status quo by calling for more funding for the NHS. Perhaps I should get out more but I was struck by the way in which the anti austerity message was offered on both occasions with such confidence, as if it were not a politically contentious message but almost a fact. Perhaps I live in a London bubble but...

20 Jun 2017

Nearly every commentator admits that he or she was wrong about the recent election, in particular their belief that no one with a modicum of responsible judgement would vote for Jeremy Corbyn. I also was wrong when I wrote this: Just as the Labour party cannot afford to be a blunt advocate of public spending because it knows that government debt is critically high, the Conservatives are no longer perpetually calling for lower taxes because they know that services to which we all think we are entitled are going to become yet more expensive. So the result is that the debate at this election has become a little more subtle than usual. As it happened, Labour produced a costed manifesto in which 80% of the extra revenue was to come from corporations or rich people, those joint gold medallists in legal tax avoidance. This was anything but subtle (“people in suits can pay”) and was effectively trashed by the party itself when, in response to complaints from students who have already incurred high debts that their successors would benefit from Labour’s plan to abolish fees in future, Jeremy Corbyn promised to “deal with it”. Dealing with it sounds expensive and was not covered by the manifesto. By contrast, the Conservatives decided that it was a good time to have a grown-up conversation about relieving young people from the burden of paying for the care of the elderly by tapping the assets of the elderly themselves. It turns out that the country is not ready for this discussion which is a great shame. Time is running out. Between now and 2030, for every net person joining the major income tax paying years of 30-59, there will be nine (net) joining the over 75s. The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan has this plausible explanation for the surprising performance of a Labour movement led by its left wing. No, I’m afraid we’re down to the simplest and most depressing explanation. Quite a few voters will support any party that seems to be offering them free stuff. Labour’s manifesto was a ridiculous list of public handouts. More money was promised for healthcare, schools, the police, public sector pay rises,...