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...

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...

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...

4 Feb 2022

The FTSE 100 outperformed (+4.2% in the quarter) the other indices (250 and All Share) because big resource shares (oil, gas, metals) did well as the market began to realise that high commodity prices promised outstanding profits. Free cash flow would be enhanced by the fact that the environmental lobby has bullied these businesses out of making the investments that would once have been expected. Instead the likes of BP (sorry, bp) have begged for forgiveness by bidding up the price of offshore wind licences.  For the full year, all the main UK indices rose by just over 14%, perhaps a sign of a fairly indiscriminate wall of money looking for a home. This was not a great result by international standards: the S&P 500 returned 27% in 2021. Meanwhile UK gilts began to show some signs that the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility was nearly full, meaning that 2022 gilt auctions would be offered to an unrigged market. In December the 10 year yield rose from 0.82% to 0.97% and (spoiler alert) in January was set to soar up through...

28 Dec 2021

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or after this, therefore because of this, is a well known logical fallacy. A sequence of events does not guarantee that there is a causal relationship between those that precede and those that follow.  Wise investors know to beware of confusing correlation with causation. A famous and surely harmless example is the Super Bowl indicator that claims that the stock market has a good year when a team from the NFL triumphs but falls if an AFC team is victorious.  Nevertheless, retrospective explanation for the movement of asset prices is a serious industry that seeks to establish an understanding of the past and, by implication, of the future, available only to a select few. I have written about this before. To an investor it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter why an asset rose or fell in price. All that matters is being aligned with the outcome. Occasionally a company that has been performing badly gets taken over at an agreeable price. Shareholders who had invested because they thought that the managers of the business were competent discover that this was not the case but ultimately are rewarded for being wrong. They give thanks and move on, as unelected leaders of their own portfolios, to their next idea without embarrassment. (Or maybe that’s just me). The so-called nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to deal with Covid-19 have elevated “post hoc ergo propter hoc” from a fallacy to the foundation of policy. Imposing lockdowns, shutting schools and destroying businesses are all actions that I consider cowardly as well as destructive, though it seems that the majority were willing to go along with them as long as the government would drive itself to the edge of insolvency to compensate them. What is, I think, beyond dispute is that the advocates of these NPIs must appear to be supported by convincing evidence that they made a positive difference. Issues of liberty, free speech, mental health and the treacherous Swedes can be relegated to background noise as long as the narrative holds.  Karl Popper proposed the Falsification Principle. It states that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably...

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...

8 Aug 2021

Back in 2014 I delivered a presentation on “Turning a good idea into an investment”. Among the precious jewels of advice was this observation.  Milestones should be plausible and realistic. We should feel that a start-up company knows what it hopes to do next week, next month, next quarter. If someone tries to interest me in a business that has invented a device that makes perfect poached eggs, I don’t want to be shown a graph of estimated global egg consumption up till 2020. I want to be shown a poached egg. I hardly need to point out that today’s politicians love to announce targets that are a long way into the future.  COVID 19 – HEADLESS CHICKENS GO VIRAL The Covid-19 pandemic has given us the rare sight of politicians made to take short-term decisions with quick measurable consequences. It has been their ultimate discomfort zone. It has not been pretty to watch but it has been instructive.  Responsibility has been outsourced with urgency – decision-making has effectively been devolved to rolling committees of the unelected who might or might not have the necessary scientific qualifications.  More surprising to me has been that the terror has spread to opposition parties whose positions have been as difficult to nail down as a smack of jellyfish at high tide. Perhaps it is not surprising, though it is certainly not admirable, that the leaders of nations prefer to bask in the warm waters of the infinity pool. BEING BRAVE AND DECISIVE ABOUT THE YEAR 2100 If future targets were awarded Oscars, the winner of best picture would be that one about the global temperature in 2100. Essentially it seeks to restrict the temperature rise between two dates; the first being when no one alive today had been born and the second where all today’s decision makers will be dead. It is a fine example of something that is beyond accountability due to lack of proper data.  I doubt if one person in fifty realises that the self-congratulatory COP 2016 Paris meeting was promising something to be realised 84 years into the future.  Given that there is little sign that China and India (for example) are taking...

26 Mar 2021

INFLATION – WHAT THEY TEACH YOU AT SCHOOL I remember from economics lessons at school that there were supposedly two categories of inflation, namely cost-push and demand-pull. This was simple enough for anyone, even a pubescent schoolboy, to understand.  Now I can see that this was something of an oversimplification (for which I was no doubt grateful). Supply and demand do not happen in isolation. They respond to each other over time. It is instructive to remember that the price of anything will rise when the current supply is insufficient to satisfy demand and of course it works in reverse.  Yet the demand element of inflation is what occupies most “informed” chatter. That’s probably because we have a more immediate feeling for it. At present there is said to be a dam of spending waiting to spill out as soon as the first world countries are released from lockdown (I’m assuming it will happen one day – stock markets are impatiently celebrating it already).  Consensus says that this will give a transitory boost to inflation which will then subside because private sector unemployment is too high – in short, the poor sods who have been screwed by lockdown will exert a deflationary effect that prevents the economy from overheating. This in turn is offered as a justification for the probability that central banks will not raise interest rates. Well, yes. Given that the US, European, UK and Japanese economies are all funded by the state balance sheets, I think we can reasonably act as if the date for the next increase in official interest rates is approximately never.  SUPPLY SIDE INFLATION But supply side inflation – now that’s a story. Energy, commodity and shipping prices are really moving this year. Given that most of the world’s major economies are still in recessionary territory that’s quite impressive.  SAMPLE OF PRICE CHANGES IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS   Carbon steel 107.8% Container rates 81.4% Oil 49.2% Lumber 44.7% Soybeans 39.8% Iron ore 38.8% Copper 31.7% Coal 31.4% Cotton 31.3% Sugar 23.1% Aluminium 22.9% Natural Gas 21.1% Wheat 12.9% Rice 8.1% IN THE PAST, TECHNOLOGY HAS BOOSTED EFFICIENCY AND CUT COSTS So what is going on? I...

24 Jan 2021

Change is inevitable and continuous. It is the journey of human life. We can try to preserve what matters to us – our fitness, for instance – but change has an unbeatable ally – time. In the end, change is both inevitable and fatal. For that reason, the promise that change can be controlled is very seductive. Convincing us that this promise is deliverable attracts those who would exercise political or financial power over us.  POLITICS AND CHANGE Some politicians and campaigners pledge to deliver change as an improvement – others to block or reverse it where they see it as bad for us. In each case they are almost certainly over promising by implying that controlling change is in their power.  Nonetheless, at times the public has an appetite for the idea that a government can deliver destiny. Then, perhaps, disillusion sets in. There certainly appears to be a cycle by which the message of change becomes more and then less popular. In the UK 1959 election the incumbent Conservatives campaigned on the slogan “Life is better with the Conservatives, don’t let Labour ruin it”, often summarised as “You’ve never had it so good!”. The voters agreed. But the change hounds, who can come from left or right, were back in the game in 1964. The Labour manifesto was titled “The New Britain” and its leader Harold Wilson became associated with the phrase “The white heat of technology”. In 1970 Labour was expected to win for the third time in a row and was by now warning against change. “Now Britain’s Strong – Let’s Make it Great to Live In” failed to make the grade, even against a pretty bland Conservative party (slogan “A better tomorrow”). In 1979 the Conservatives were undeniably the party of change with the famous “Labour isn’t working” poster.  Fast forward to 1997 and the Conservative were in full change denial again. Their slogan was “New Labour, New Danger” and they were obliterated by Tony Blair and his campaign song “Things Can Only Get Better”. For a while politicians like Blair and Barack Obama sold change as something progressive. The implicit message was that we are all sinners who...

28 Dec 2020

This is a personal record to help me understand how and when this shitstorm blew up and if anything of importance was missed by me (or anybody else) that should or could have been anticipated. Most of the material comes from my email in and out boxes and has not been edited. I should say that the virus itself has never particularly concerned me. I think that there are broadly two kinds of fear, both of which we all experience to varying degrees. There is the fear caused by specific and known danger in the face of which some people try to hold their nerve and respond as rationally as they can. Dorothy Parker glamourised this kind of courage by attributing to Hemingway the phrase “grace under pressure”. And there is fear of the unknown which has a tendency to induce panic and paralysis. I make no claim to be courageous but I have a certain amount of contempt for fear of the unknown, though in the UK it appears to have gripped a majority of the population. The trigger word for these people is “uncertainty” as in “markets/investors/businesses hate uncertainty”.  It seems to me that the more that is known about Covid-19 the less frightening it is. It also appears that for some reason the government, its public servants and most of the media tend to promote fear and to suppress reassuring news lest it leads to complacency and (can I really be using this word?) disobedience. As an investor, as I have written elsewhere, uncertainty is to be welcomed because it causes assets to be mispriced. The problem, as 2020 has demonstrated, is that it sometimes takes extraordinary imagination to see it. Thursday 23 January  The Foreign Office advised against non-essential travel to Wuhan province. I cannot seriously suggest that I could have interpreted that as a harbinger of what was to come.  Wednesday 29 January  BA halted all flights to mainland China. At the same time, there were reports that the virus had definitely arrived in Lombardy in Italy. This is the point when it seemed real to those of us living in Europe and if I am hard on myself...

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...

6 May 2020

Things are starting to get serious. The SAGE committee is vast and its remit is the virus and nothing but the virus. It has saved the NHS to the extent that the new Nightingale hospital near the O2 in London is shutting after four weeks. Job done except that most of the public is either scared out of its senses or, more worryingly, preferring a life of leisure on 80% wages. The government is now directly supporting more than half the adult population. Normally I would say that a minority of taxpayers is bearing the burden of the rest but that is nowhere near the truth. Taxpayers are being furloughed too. The printers are rolling and the government is set to borrow from itself. The question is, how long will people be able to live on these new government tokens (once known as sterling currency)? CURRENCY DEBASEMENT My son Leo has just written about the use of the first ancient coins. Greek traders who knew nothing of coinage were happy to use them, even though the gold/silver content was lower than natural bullion of the same weight. Leo was puzzled as to how items of lower intrinsic value continued to be accepted. My answer was that a coin’s real intrinsic value is the belief that if you accept it in return for a “real” good you will be able to pass it on to someone else in return for goods of the same value. But once that belief falters the coins will be swiftly debased. The debasement of our currency will manifest itself as inflation. If you weren’t an adult by the 1980s you will not remember a time when people bought assets today for fear that they would cost more tomorrow. I knew a couple in about 1985 who agreed to buy a small house off the King’s Rd. It was suddenly withdrawn from the market and re-listed at a £50k premium. To their credit, I guess, they did not blink and paid up at once. The US is issuing $3 trillion of debt this quarter. (That’s $9146 for every man, woman and child, or $11,363 for every adult). The US can get...

20 Apr 2020

Just as I failed to forecast the 30% fall in stock markets, I also never expected the reaction to Covid-19 to begin to diverge along traditional political lines. Life is just one bloody surprise after another these days. It turns out that people on the right, among whom for this exercise I number myself (though see below) think that national lockdown and uniform loss of personal liberty is a dangerous and irrational reaction to a pandemic that primarily targets the old and medically vulnerable. The economic cost is probably both huge and beyond the understanding of the people who are taking medically-driven decisions. People on the left are more likely to worship the NHS and to think that protecting it is worth any cost. They think that complaining about job losses and more trivial inconveniences is in extremely bad taste and that “we’re all in it together” is the right spirit. Though we’re not all in it together because the virus discriminates against some groups that the left favours, including, of course, frontline medical workers and ethnic minorities. The numbers say that the real victims of viral discrimination are the elderly and particularly elderly men. Unfortunately their care is not funded by the NHS and even a 99 year old man walking around and around his garden is not raising money for them. These are not groups that appeal much to the left because, on average, they tend to vote the wrong way. Remember the calls for a second Brexit referendum in 2019 because it was felt that enough Leave voters might have died to reverse the decision? These are all relatively (I use that word carefully) mainstream views. Criticisms of China and the WHO, though contentious, fall under the same heading. But there are plenty of extreme conspiracy theories. Round up the usual suspects. “Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a significant rise in accusations that Jews, as individuals and as a collective, are behind the spread of the virus or are directly profiting from it.” Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress. Some people seem to think Covid-19 is our punishment for screwing with God’s planet, which...

6 Jan 2020

The last two weeks of 2019 were a good year for equity markets. The immediate cause was of course a decisive majority for the Conservatives and the apparent dispatch of Corbynism to the library shelf marked “Historical Fantasies”, perhaps one day to be studied by students who feel that their knowledge of the Venerable Bede is as complete as it will ever be. From 13 December, the day the results were known, the FTSE 100 rose by 4% to the end of the month, having been down in the quarter up to that point. The star performer in Q4 was the FTSE 250, the most domestically exposed index, which rose by 10%, compared to 2% for the 100 and 3% for the All Share. Year on year, all the indexes were stars due to a meltdown in Q4 2018 which offered a generous comparison. For 2019 as a whole, the FTse 100 was +12%, the 250 + 25% and the All Share +15%. Wow. The US 10 year yield was stable at 1.79%. 10 year gilt yields rallied from 0.55% to 0.74%, perhaps reflecting very small worries about more government borrowing. A year ago when things looked bearish I wrote the following: 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. At the time I said that I was bored by politics and Chinese trade wars. On those fronts the noise has remained much the same. Donald Trump is a year closer to re-election, subject to the Democrats deciding to try to defeat him democratically rather than with the law. Climate change activists have got louder and sillier, though following COP 25 in Madrid, at which 27,000 delegates achieved very little, there was some overdue acknowledgement of the tension between the economic demands of poor countries with hundreds of millions of people living in poverty and the schoolgirl demands of...

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...

2 Jul 2019

Falling bond yields continued everywhere in Q2. US 10 year yields are now just over 2%, UK at 0.86% and Germany at a record low of -0.3%. In the report on Q1 I wrote: “Perhaps by the end of Q2 we will be able to guess what people were worrying about.” The short answer appears to be world trade. President Trump believes that holds all the cards and, ignoring the fact that he doesn’t seem to know or care that import tariffs are a tax on his own citizens, he is not far wrong. His hostility to China is well known. Some people suspect that he next wants to turn his fire on the EU which to him essentially means Germany. Of course by implication it could also mean the UK. Assuming that Donald Trump is capable of deferring a threat, it might just be that he is waiting for the UK’s exit from the EU before firing his cannons. In the 29 quarters since the start of 2013, the average quarter-on-quarter GDP growth in the US has been 0.59%, in the UK 0.46%, in Germany 0.34% and in the euro countries (the EU 19) just 0.27%. It appears that some combination of factors – demographics, the ECB, the euro itself, the EU’s insular anti-trade practices – has produced an era of disturbingly low growth in the EU and hence the lowest, deadest interest rates since the invention of money. Many people these days are spooked by “uncertainty”. They needn’t worry. There is nothing on the horizon to rouse the economies of Europe from their slumber. When I hear endless warnings about what will happen to the UK economy when or if it separates from the EU (three and a half years of “project fear” so far – keep it up, guys) I don’t know whether to laugh or guffaw. The UK stock market indices rose by 1.9% in the quarter. They are down by 3-6% over the last year and around 1% higher compared to two years ago. So it has been hard going. There is little easy money to be made and those who try too hard can easily come a cropper....

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...