Why the soaring cost of government borrowing matters for everyone

Published

1 year ago

October 23, 2023

admin

Except on rare occasions – last year’s post-Liz Truss mini-budget episode being one of them – the bond market rarely garners as much attention as other financial sectors.

Yet these markets, where companies and governments come to borrow, are the foundations for the global economy.

In particular, the value of government bonds – and hence their imputed interest rates – have an enormous bearing on all our lives. Higher bond yields, as these interest rates are called, imply that we will all be paying more interest on that debt for years to come.

So the fact that these interest rates are shooting up rapidly around the world in recent weeks is no trivial matter. On Monday morning, the yield on US 10-year debt (typically seen as a benchmark for this market) broke through the 5% mark.

The UK’s own 10-year government debt is, at 4.7%, now above the highs it hit following last autumn’s mini-budget.

The 30-year UK government bond yield just hit the highest level since 1998. This is big stuff – and indeed the degree of yo-yoing in recent weeks has been unprecedented.

Something is clearly going on in these markets, but what?

This is where things get a little murkier, because it turns out there is no single, definitive explanation for these fluctuations. That comes back to a broader point, which is that the price of a given country’s debt is telling you lots of things at the same time.

It could be telling you about future expectations for where central bank interest rates are heading in future. At one and the same time, it could be signalling how much demand there is in capital markets for a given country’s debt. It could equally be caused by supply: if a government is issuing lots of debt, you might reasonably expect people to ask for higher interest rates to lend them that money.

And the explanation for the recent rise in bond yields could well be all of the above.

A lot of debt

It’s worth saying, before we go into it, that most of this shift seems to be centred on the US economy – but any rise in Treasury yields (those US government bonds are typically referred to as “Treasuries”) has a direct impact on the rest of the world. So it matters for everyone.

Anyway, let’s take the central bank thesis first. Up until quite recently, most economists and investors had been assuming that having risen sharply in recent years, official central bank interest rates would be cut quite rapidly next year – that the shape of the future interest rate curve might resemble the Matterhorn, that Swiss mountain which used to be on the side of Toblerone packages until they stopped making the chocolate in Switzerland.

But central banks, including the US Federal Reserve and Bank of England, have been at pains recently to signal that those rates might not be coming down quite so quickly.

In fact, says Bank of England chief economist Huw Pill, the future path for interest rates might look a bit more like Table Mountain – a long, flat plateau of higher rates.

So that’s one part of the explanation. Another is that right now the US government is borrowing enormous amounts of money, partly to finance its Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act, as well as new Biden administration welfare policies.

The combined effect is, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to lift the US national debt up to the highest levels since the aftermath of WWII.

That’s a lot of debt – and while everyone’s known about these plans for some time, it’s possible investors are only now beginning to baulk at the prospect of absorbing all that debt.

Dangerous territory

The final explanation, which is considerably more speculative but also more unsettling, comes back to something else.

You may recall that after Russia invaded Ukraine, Western nations talked about doing what they could to ensure Russia would pay for reconstruction in Ukraine, including potentially seizing Russian assets held in Western nations.

No one is entirely sure how this would work, but at the recent IMF annual meetings in Marrakech, the group of seven leading economies (the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Italy) agreed to begin working on it.

As I say, no one is entirely sure how this should be done. It might be possible to confiscate some of the interest payments which might otherwise have been due to Russia, earned by Russian assets held in Europe.

But the G7 is also aware that this is dangerous territory, begging questions about the function of international law and the international monetary system.

It also sends a pretty clear message to other countries. If the G7 is content to start seizing Russian assets in their countries then what is to stop them doing likewise with, say, Chinese assets?

Perhaps you see where this is going. At the moment, China is one of the biggest buyers of US government debt, and there is evidence that it is slowing its purchases of US government debt.

Might that be because it’s somewhat spooked by the ongoing efforts to recoup money from Russia? Might Chinese authorities worry that something similar could or would happen to its holdings of US Treasuries if it invaded Taiwan? No one knows for sure, but this is another not altogether implausible explanation for those higher bond yields.

All of which is to say: it’s complicated. But it’s also quite scary. And higher interest rates mean higher debt repayment costs for this country in the coming years.

The ability of this government (or a possible future Labour government) to borrow to finance big projects in future depends on being able to borrow at a reasonable interest rate. And those interest rates are getting considerably higher.

Business

Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion

Published

14 hours ago

April 1, 2025

admin

Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion

Major car manufacturers and two trade bodies are to pay a total of £461m for “colluding to restrict competition” over vehicle recycling, UK and European regulators have announced.

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said they illegally agreed not to compete against one another when advertising what percentage of their cars can be recycled.

They also colluded to avoid paying third parties to recycle their customers’ scrap cars, the watchdog said.

Money latest: The many household bills rising today

It explained that those involved were BMW, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot Citroen, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Vauxhall and Volkswagen.

Mercedes-Benz, was also party to the agreements, the CMA said, but it escaped a financial penalty because the German company alerted it to its participation.

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (Acea) and the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT) were also involved in the illegal agreements.

The CMA imposed a combined penalty of almost £78m while the European Commission handed out fines totalling €458m (£382.7m).

The penalties were announced at a time of wider turmoil for Europe’s car industry.

Manufacturers across the continent are bracing for the threatened impact of tariffs on all their exports to the United States as part of Donald Trump’s trade war.

Within the combined fine settlements of £77.7m issued by the CMA, Ford was to pay £18.5m, VW £14.8m, BMW £11.1m and Jaguar Land Rover £4.6m.

Lucilia Falsarella Pereira, senior director of competition enforcement at the CMA, said: “Agreeing with competitors the prices you’ll pay for a service or colluding to restrict competition is illegal and this can extend to how you advertise your products.

“This kind of collusion can limit consumers’ ability to make informed choices and lower the incentive for companies to invest in new initiatives.

“We recognise that competing businesses may want to work together to help the environment, in those cases our door is open to help them do so.”

Business

Customers ‘protected’ as household energy supplier exits market

Published

16 hours ago

April 1, 2025

admin

Customers 'protected' as household energy supplier exits market

A household energy supplier has failed, weeks after it attracted attention from regulators.

Rebel Energy, which has around 80,000 domestic customers and 10,000 others, had been the subject of a provisional order last month related to compliance with rules around renewable energy obligations.

The company’s website said it was “ceasing to trade” but gave no reason.

Money latest: The many household bills rising today

Industry watchdog Ofgem said on Tuesday that those affected by Rebel’s demise did not need to take any action and would be “protected”.

Customers, Ofgem said, would soon be appointed a new provider under its supplier of last resort (SoLR) mechanism.

This was deployed widely in 2021 when dozens of energy suppliers collapsed while failing to get to grips with a spike in wholesale energy costs.

The last supplier to go under was in July 2022.

Ofgem said new rules governing supplier business practices since then had bolstered resilience.

These include minimum capital requirements and the ringfencing of customer credit balances.

The exit from the market by Bedford-based Rebel was announced on the same day that the energy price cap rose again to take account of soaring wholesale costs between December and January.

Try the Sky News cost of living calculator

Tim Jarvis, director general for markets at Ofgem, said: “Rebel Energy customers do not need to worry, and I want to reassure them that they will not see any disruption to their energy supply, and any credit they may have on their accounts remains protected under Ofgem’s rules.

“We are working quickly to appoint new suppliers for all impacted customers. We’d advise customers not to try to switch supplier in the meantime, and a new supplier will be in touch in the coming weeks with further information.

“We have worked hard to improve the financial resilience of suppliers in recent years, implementing a series of rules to make sure they can weather unexpected shocks. But like any competitive market, some companies will still fail from time to time, and our priority is making sure consumers are protected if that happens.”

Business

Harrods challenges survivors’ law firm’s compensation cut

Published

16 hours ago

April 1, 2025

admin

Harrods challenges survivors' law firm's compensation cut

Harrods is urging lawyers acting for the largest group of survivors of abuse perpetrated by its former owner to reconsider plans to swallow a significant chunk of claimants’ compensation payouts in fees.

Sky News has learnt that KP Law, which is acting for hundreds of potential clients under the banner Justice for Harrods, is proposing to take up to 25% of compensation awards in exchange for handling their cases.

In many cases, that is likely to mean survivors foregoing sums worth of tens of thousands of pounds to KP Law, which says it is working for hundreds of people who suffered abuse committed by Mohamed al Fayed.

Money latest: Boost for holidaymakers amid ‘awful April’ bill hikes

Under a redress scheme outlined by the London-based department store on Monday, which confirmed earlier reports by Sky News, claimants will be eligible for general damages awards of up to £200,000, depending upon whether they agree to a psychiatric assessment arranged by Harrods.

In addition, other payments could take the maximum award to an individual under the scheme to £385,000.

A document published online names several law firms which have agreed to represent Mr al Fayed’s victims without absorbing any of their compensation payments.

KP Law is not among those firms.

Theoretically, if Justice for Harrods members are awarded compensation in excess of the sums proposed by the company, KP Law could stand to earn many millions of pounds from its share of the payouts.

A Harrods spokesperson told Sky News on Tuesday: “The purpose of the Harrods Redress Scheme is to offer financial and psychological support to those who choose to enter the scheme, rather than as a route to criminal justice.

“With a survivor-first approach, it has been designed by personal injury experts with the input of several legal firms currently representing survivors.

“Although Harrods tabled the scheme, control of the claim is in the hands of the survivors who can determine at any point to continue, challenge, opt out or seek alternative routes such as mediation or litigation.

“Our hope is that everyone receives 100% of the compensation awarded to them but we understand there is one exception among these law firms currently representing survivors who is proposing to take up to 25% of survivors’ compensation.

“We hope they will reconsider given we have already committed to paying reasonable legal costs.”

Responding to the publication of the scheme on Monday, KP Law criticised it as inadequate, saying it “does not go far enough to deliver the justice and accountability demanded by our clients”.

“This is not solely a question of compensation but about justice and exposing the systematic abuse and the many people who helped to operate it for the benefit of Mohamed al Fayed and others.”

Seeking to rebut the questions raised by Harrods about its fee structure, KP Law told Sky News: “KP Law is committed to supporting our clients through the litigation process to obtain justice first and foremost as well as recovering the maximum possible damages for them.

“This will cover all potential outcomes for the case.

“Despite the Harrods scheme seeking to narrow the potential issues, we believe that there are numerous potential defendants in a number of jurisdictions that are liable for what our clients went through, and we are committed to securing justice for our client group.

“KP Law is confident that it will recover more for its clients than what could be achieved through the redress scheme established by Harrods, which in our view is inadequate and does not go far enough to compensate victims of Mr al Fayed.”

The verbal battle between Harrods and KP Law underlines the fact that the battle for compensation and wider justice for survivors of Mr al Fayed remains far from complete.

The billionaire, who died in 2023, is thought to have sexually abused hundreds of women during a 25-year reign of terror at Harrods.

He also owned Fulham Football Club and Paris’s Ritz Hotel.

Harrods is now owned by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund controlled by the Gulf state’s ruling family.

The redress scheme commissioned by the department store is being coordinated by MPL Legal, an Essex-based law firm.

Last October, lawyers acting for victims of Mr al Fayed said they had received more than 420 enquiries about potential claims, although it is unclear how many more have come forward in the six months since.