Connect with us

Published

on

As a symbol of the year in crypto, the sight of Sam Bankman-Fried being hustled out of court in Nassau to a blacked-out SUV that would take him to an airfield, and an extradition flight to New York, takes some beating.

For the highest-profile player in cryptocurrency, 2022 has come to an abrupt and unforgiving end.

The man who received celebrities, prime ministers and presidents in shorts and a T-shirt is no longer the quirky nerd whose genius might unlock the potential to earn digital billions.

Instead, he’s the face of a massive fraud, accused of using customers’ money in the crypto exchange FTX to cover his bad bets and fund a Bahamian penthouse lifestyle while he preached a doctrine of altruism, in which his millions were earned in the service of the less fortunate.

Prosecutors revealed on Wednesday that his closest partners in the business, his co-founder and the some-time girlfriend who ran his crypto hedge fund, have turned, pleading guilty to wrongdoing and providing evidence against him.

SBF, as he is sometimes known, has insisted that none of this was intentional, that the siphoning of customer money to his private accounts is a function of incompetence rather than venality.

But with tens of millions of those dollars having been directed to political donations, Washington is as embarrassed as celebrities like Tom Brady – who beamed their endorsements in FTX’s lavish marketing campaigns – and the outlook is bleak.

More on Bitcoin

Was it inevitable?

The question for the crypto industry, and the wider field of digital assets, is whether FTX’s collapse is an inevitable symptom of a sector that, in promising to magic value out of the electronic ether, has always been short on trust and credibility, and fertile ground for corruption.

Or is SBF, as his successor as chief executive of FTX alleges, simply an old-fashioned embezzler whose alleged crimes were sophisticated only in the way they were hidden in plain view? And if so, do digital assets have a future not forever mired in wild volatility of questionable assets, sudden collapses, and cons?

It had already been a chastening year with a series of summer collapses, of crypto lender Celsius and the Terra-Luna network, a scandal with its own fugitive from justice, Do Kwon, subject of an arrest warrant in South Korea, and an Interpol red notice.

Naomi Osaka appeared in an ad for FTX
Image:
Naomi Osaka appeared in an ad for FTX

These collapses wiped out billions, and a 75% slump in the value of the original cryptocurrency Bitcoin took a few more, much of it from retail investors whose willingness to exchange real money for digital ciphers is the fuel that keeps the crypto machine running.

Frances Coppola, an economist and noted crypto-sceptic, says these episodes are a consequence of the fundamentally unsound nature of the products, hastened by the wider economic climate in which cheap money is no longer available to top up the punchbowl.

“In the time crypto’s been in existence it has promised much and delivered very little, except a lot of bubbles which have then spectacularly burst,” she says. “We are now in our third major bursting of a crypto bubble in its short timeframe and it’s not at all clear when or if it will recover from this.

“I think FTX and the rest, Terra, Luna, Celsius, are a phenomenon of the crypto bubble that we’ve seen in the last two years. It’s not greatly surprising that it all came to grief when the Fed [US Federal Reserve] started to tighten monetary policy along with other central banks, and the withdrawal from the global economy of all the money that had been pumped in during the pandemic.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What went wrong for FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried?

Wild volatility part of Crypto’s appeal

The wild volatility that has been so costly this year appears to be a fundamental part of crypto’s appeal. Speculation and the ability to massively leverage bets by borrowing from exchanges feels like it has more in common with gambling than an investment, a retail version of the wild derivatives trading exposed to public view at horrible cost in 2008.

That has not stopped mainstream investors from taking a greater interest in crypto. Some of the biggest venture capital funds in America lost money in FTX, and banks are responding to demand from institutional investors unwilling to leave an estimated trillion dollars in new digital assets on the table.

Waqar Chaudry, of Standard Chartered bank, told me the next two years will be pivotal for mainstream engagement with digital finance: “We believe digital assets are here to stay for the long term. The primary job for a bank is to provide services to the clients where they need it.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

“From an institutional banking point of view, there is demand where large institutions are moving into cryptocurrencies. So where they are moving into that world they need service providers who have pedigree in financial services, and they are talking to us about what their plans are and what they look like for the next 12 to 24 months.”

The corporate world meanwhile is looking hard at the technology that lies beneath. These ‘distributed digital ledgers’, in which watertight cryptography and a public network of scrutineers replacing a clearing house or intermediary, have long appeared to have transformational potential.

For years blockchain has seemed like an answer awaiting the right question, but numerous routes are becoming clear.

The value of FTX's FTT token has collapsed over the past month. Pic: CoinMarketCap
Image:
The value of FTX’s FTT token collapsed. Pic: CoinMarketCap

The economy of things

Philip Skipper, Vodafone’s head of technology for the internet of things, says they are crucial to the next step in digital living, ‘the economy of things’.

“We already have devices that you can communicate with. The economy of things is when these devices communicate and transact with each other.

“So you can be driving down the road and your electric car could be communicating with a traffic light, you can be buying access to a congestion charge for the next 50 yards. It’s the ability of these devices to connect and transact together. That is the economy of things. Underpinning that is how you link all those plays together and that’s where blockchain has the key role.”

Global supply chains, so disrupted by COVID, could be transformed by the technology too. The combination of blockchain and stable digital currency opens the door to smart money, which could link payments to quality and delivery at each stage of a production process.

FOR TOM'S EXPLAINER

The flip side of this notion is state-controlled money which limits a citizen’s ability to spend as and when they choose. Imagine welfare payments paid only in approved digital coins that would only unlock for approved products.

The potential of these technologies for good and ill makes the role of regulators and government central, as well as the importance of public debate about what exactly we want from our money.

That absence of regulation is a common theme to the catastrophic failures in crypto this year. Ironically for a technology that promised to bypass mainstream institutions, they will be central to shaping the future of crypto and blockchain.

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves said this flagship policy would raise money – it may end up doing the opposite

Published

on

By

Why Rachel Reeves may want to rethink one of her pivotal policies

What do we do about the non-doms? 

It’s a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.

Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.

Then that all changed.

Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”

The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.

If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.

Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters
Image:
Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters

With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.

So, how worried should she be?

The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.

However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.

While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.

Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.

Property sales

Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.

Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.

This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.

Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT
Image:
Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT

“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.

“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.

“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”

Lack of options for non-doms

But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.

This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.

In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.

In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.

Read more on Sky News:
Reeves warned over tax rises
What is a wealth tax?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Are taxes going to rise?

The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.

Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.

So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.

Have Labour crossed a red line?

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.

The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Rachel Reeves would hate what you just said’

Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.

“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”

With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves is celebrating the Bank of England’s interest cut – but behind the scenes she has little to cheer

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves is celebrating the Bank of England's interest cut – but behind the scenes she has little to cheer

The economy is stagnating and job losses are mounting. Now is the time to cut interest rates again.

That was the view of the Bank of England’s nine-member rate setting committee on Thursday.

Well, at least five of them.

The other four presented us with a different view: Inflation is above target and climbing – this is no time to cut interest rates.

Who is right? All of them and none of them.

Central bankers have been backed into a corner by the current economic climate and navigating a path out is challenging.

The difficulty in charting that route was on display as the Bank struggled to decide on the best course of monetary policy.

The committee had to take it to a re-vote for the first time in the Bank’s history.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Bank of England is ‘a bit muddled’

On one side, central bankers – including Andrew Bailey – were swayed by the data on the economy. Growth is “subdued”, they said, and job losses are mounting.

This should weigh on wage increases, which are already moderating, and in turn inflation.

One member, Alan Taylor, was so worried about the economy he initially suggested a larger half a percentage point cut.

On the other side, their colleagues were alarmed by inflation.

The Bank upgraded its inflation forecasts, with the headline index expected to hit 4% in September.

In a blow to the chancellor, the September figure is used to uprate a number of benefits and pensions. The Bank lifted it from a previous forecast of 3.75%.

In explaining the increase, the Bank blamed higher utility bills and food prices.

Food price inflation could hit 5.5% this year, an increase driven by poor harvests, some expensive packaging regulations as well as higher employment costs arising from the Autumn Budget.

Rachel Reeves on Thursday. Pic: PA
Image:
Rachel Reeves on Thursday. Pic: PA

When pressed by Sky News on the main contributor to that increase – poor harvests or government policy – the governor said: “It’s about 50-50.”

The Bank doesn’t like to get political but nothing about this is flattering for the chancellor.

The Bank said food retailers, including supermarkets, were passing on higher national insurance and living wage costs – the ones announced in the Autumn Budget – to customers.

Economists at the Bank pointed out that food retailers employ a large proportion of low wage workers and are more vulnerable to the lowering of the national insurance threshold because they have a larger proportion of part-time workers.

The danger doesn’t end there.

Read more:
Who is worst hit by Trump’s new tariffs?
Chancellor doesn’t rule out rising gambling taxes

Of all the types of inflation, food price inflation is among the most dangerous.

Households spend 11% of their disposable income, meaning higher food price inflation can play an outsized role in our perception of how high overall inflation in the economy is.

When that happens, workers are more likely to push for pay rises, a dangerous loop that can lead to higher inflation.

So while the chancellor is publicly celebrating the Bank’s fifth interest rate cut in a year, behind the scenes she will have very little to cheer.

Continue Reading

Business

Bank of England issues inflation warning but cuts interest rate to 4%

Published

on

By

Bank of England issues inflation warning but cuts interest rate to 4%

The Bank of England has cut the interest rate for the fifth time in a year to 4% but warned that climbing food prices will cause inflation to jump higher in 2025.

In a tight decision that saw members of the rate-setting committee vote twice to break a deadlock, the Bank cut the rate to the lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years. Households on a variable mortgage of about £140,000 will save about £30 a month.

Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, said: “We’ve cut interest rates today, but it was a finely balanced decision. Interest rates are still on a downward path, but any future cuts will need to be made gradually and carefully.”

Money latest: What interest rate cut means for savers and borrowers

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), the nine-member panel that sets the base interest rate, voted in favour of lowering borrowing costs by 0.25 percentage points.

However, rate-setters failed to reach a unanimous decision, with four members of the committee voting to keep it on hold and another four voting for a 0.25 percentage point cut.

Alan Taylor, an external member of the committee, initially called for a larger 0.5 percentage point cut but after a second vote reduced that to 0.25% to break the deadlock. Had they failed to reach a decision, Mr Bailey, the governor, would have had the decisive vote.

More on Bank Of England

It is the first time the committee has gone to a second vote and highlights the difficulty policymakers face in navigating the current economic climate, in which economic growth is stagnating, with at least one rate-setter fearing a recession, but inflation remains persistent.

Although the central bank voted to cut borrowing costs, it also raised its inflation forecasts on the back of higher food prices.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We’ve got to get the balance right on tax’

The bank predicted that the headline rate of inflation would hit 4% in September, up from a previous estimate of 3.75%.

The September inflation rate is used to uprate a range of benefits, including pensions.

The increase was driven by food, where the inflation rate could hit 5.5% this year. About a tenth of household spending is devoted to food shopping, which means it can have an outsized impact on inflation.

The Bank said this risked creating “second round effects”, whereby a sense of higher inflation forces people to push for pay rises, which could push inflation even higher.

Economists at the Bank blamed poor harvests, weather conditions, and changes to packaging regulations but also, in a blow to the chancellor, higher labour costs.

It pointed out that a higher proportion of workers in the food retail sector are paid the national living wage, which Rachel Reeves increased by 6.7% in April.

Economists at the Bank also blamed higher employment taxes announced in the autumn budget. “Furthermore, overall labour costs of supermarkets are likely to have been disproportionately affected by the lower threshold at which employers start paying NICs… these material increases in labour costs are likely to have pushed up food prices.”

There is also evidence that employers’ national insurance increases are causing businesses to curtail hiring, the Bank said. It comes as unemployment in the UK rose unexpectedly to a fresh four-year high of 4.7% in May. Separate data shows the number of employees on payroll has contracted for the fifth month in a row,

The Bank said the unemployment rate could hit 5% next year and warned of “subdued” economic growth, with one member – Alan Taylor – warning of an “increased risk of recession” in the coming years.

Continue Reading

Trending