Middle East conflict: Why oil prices are not surging ahead

Published

1 week ago

October 2, 2024

admin

Israel is fighting on at least four fronts, threatening a war across the oil-rich Middle East, but there is no great sense of fear yet as far as financial markets are concerned.

Israel’s actions against Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and the ultimate sponsors of these groups, Iran, have proved a catalyst for oil price spikes since the 7 October attack on Israel in 2023.

But something has changed in recent weeks – even as the conflict has intensified.

Oil prices have barely moved and remain well below the levels seen in April when Iran last fired on Israel in retaliation for military action against its proxies.

Money latest: Different ways you can beat inheritance tax

Where are prices today?

The cost of Brent crude stands at $75 a barrel on Wednesday morning.

That is up from the $71 figure seen 24 hours earlier, before Iran’s missile barrage on Israel.

So we have seen a shift, yes, but market analysts say there are many factors holding the price back.

How does the cost compare to recent price shocks?

This chart tells the story.

It shows the settling for prices since the price shock of 2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Brent peaked above $122 in May of that year as the market juggled the impact of Western sanctions against the Kremlin, among other factors.

The price gradually fell back from there until worries about low stockpiles in September 2023 pushed it towards $100 again – remaining sticky from there due to the cross-border attack by Hamas a fortnight later.

Brent stood at $90 this April after Iran’s first rocket attack on Israel.

But that was largely seen as a mere warning shot using inferior weaponry – more a face-saving exercise than a real attempt to cause destruction.

So, perhaps, that makes today’s oil price even more puzzling given the escalation since.

What is supporting the oil price?

The theory that Israel may choose to target Iran’s oil infrastructure is a risk.

The country exports an estimated 1.5 million barrels per day but it is not among the major players due to the impact of US sanctions so any disruption to its supplies would be minimal.

Also being priced in is the possibility of wider risks to shipments in the event of a more regional conflict.

In addition to the Middle East crisis, the price has also been propped up by news late last month of economic stimulus in China.

So what is keeping prices down?

Basically, the global economic outlook has taken a turn for the worse. It’s still tough out there.

The global economy is being weighed down by the effects of the successive shocks that have hit since COVID, with higher costs deterring expansion.

Whether that malaise is the result of higher central bank interest rates to battle inflation or reluctance among governments to add to COVID-era borrowing, the outlook for immediate oil demand remains poor.

As Western economies slow again, the biggest growth market of China has been in the doldrums for years due to the effects of a property crisis that has hammered consumer spending.

Also providing a low gear is the continued expectation that the cartel of oil-producing countries, known as OPEC, will raise output in December.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said of the price situation: “These worries are being mitigated by expectations that Saudi Arabia will turn on the taps more fully, and lower demand from China, but upwards pressure is likely to continue while uncertainty reigns about just how far conflict will spread.”

What is the outlook for fuel prices?

Higher oil prices tend to stoke costs more widely in the economy, as they feed through, due to the commodity’s importance in many areas from transport to manufacturing.

It generally takes a couple of weeks for oil price shifts to be reflected in factory gate costs and at the fuel pumps.

In the case of petrol and diesel, prices are currently at a three-year low. Any sustained increase for Brent crude may mean that is short lived.

Business

US national debt is heading for historic highs – whoever wins election

Published

8 hours ago

October 11, 2024

admin

US national debt is heading for historic highs - whoever wins election

Here in the UK, politicians are fixated with the level of the national debt.

They fret about the fact that it is now knocking on for 100% of UK gross domestic product (GDP). They incorporate it into their fiscal rules, compelling them to get it falling (even if they rarely succeed in practice).

So you might be surprised to learn that while Britain’s national debt is projected to fall in the coming years, the equivalent figure in the US is projected to balloon to completely unprecedented levels.

In fact, while Britain and America’s state debt levels have moved in near lockstep with each other in recent decades (as a percentage of GDP, both were in the mid-30s pre-financial crisis, in the 1970s and 1980s afterwards, then approaching 100% after COVID), they are about to diverge dramatically.

So, at least, suggest the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office and Britain’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). They show that while both UK and US net debt are just shy of 100% this year, America’s will rise to 125% by the middle of the next decade, while Britain’s will fall to 91%.

Now of course, these are just projections, based on the assumption that each country follows the current plans laid down by their respective administrations. Those plans could well change. But even so – the gap would amount to the biggest divergence in post-war history.

The reasons for it are many: in part, the US is raising less in taxes, thanks in part to a series of tax cuts and exemptions which began under Donald Trump but continued, for some recipients, under Joe Biden.

In part it’s because it’s spending more, both on discretionary measures like the Inflation Reduction Act (a series of subsidies for green tech firms) and non-discretionary schemes like Medicare.

Either way, the US is slated to borrow more in the coming years than it has done in any comparable period in recent memory. And the upshot of that is a seemingly perpetual increase in the federal debt, up to that 125% of GDP record level.

Which raises the question: what are the candidates in this election planning to do about it? The short answer is: not much.

Indeed, according to the latest analysis from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, based on the promises made by Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the gap will only widen – whichever party wins the election.

It found that the Ms Harris campaign’s plans, which involve considerably more spending, imply the federal debt rising to a record 133% of GDP.

Perhaps that’s unsurprising, but the real shock of the analysis is that it found Mr Trump’s plans imply an even steeper upward trajectory, as he slashes taxes for a range of households and businesses, and continues some of the existing spending plans. While the Republicans are traditionally seen as the party of fiscal prudence, a second Trump administration would send the federal debt heading towards 142% of GDP.

👉 Click here to follow The Ian King Business Podcast wherever you get your podcasts 👈

All of these figures would be record numbers. And for some economists that raises an important question: at what point do investors in UK government debt – and the dollar more widely – balk at these spending and borrowing plans?

Since the US dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, Washington is often said to enjoy an “exorbitant privilege”, allowing the government to avoid the constraints of many other nations. But with the federal debt heading towards these unprecedented levels – regardless of which candidate wins – the country’s economic story is heading into unfamiliar territory.

Business

Government is using Post Office as ‘shield’ over Horizon compensation schemes, outgoing CEO Nick Read tells inquiry

Published

17 hours ago

October 10, 2024

admin

Government is using Post Office as 'shield' over Horizon compensation schemes, outgoing CEO Nick Read tells inquiry

The Post Office’s outgoing CEO today agreed the government is using the company as a “shield” over compensation schemes, while giving evidence at the inquiry.

Nick Read, who resigned last month, was giving evidence at the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry for the second day, with a focus on delays to victims’ financial redress.

Edward Henry KC, representing wronged sub-postmasters caught up in the Horizon scandal, asked Mr Read if the government “is using the Post Office as a shield or a fire curtain”.

He replied: “That could be a description, yes.”

Mr Henry continued: “The fact you’re [the Post Office] administering two out of the three schemes gives the government a degree of protection… one step removed gives it room for plausible deniability?”

Mr Read responded: “That’s true.”

Hundreds of sub postmasters were wrongfully convicted due to faulty Horizon computer software used by the Post Office between 1999 and 2015.

The outgoing Post Office boss denied the company has been instructed “to minimise or supress compensation claims whilst avoiding public scrutiny”.

Mr Read admitted, however, that the compensation process has been “overly bureaucratic” and expressed “deep regret” that the Post Office had not lived up to delivering “speedy and fair redress”.

However, he insisted the “approach” and way of “engaging” with victims has changed in the last few months, with “lessons learned” since the start of the year.

“I think we are genuinely open and moving towards a better system,” Mr Read told the inquiry. “There are proper appeals processes, proper independent panels now working.”

He added there is a “commitment… to get this right,” and said he believes “things will start to flow” despite “mistakes hav[ing] certainly been made”.

Mr Read also addressed the “terrible” fact that hundreds of sub-postmasters have died before receiving compensation.

A total of 251 people have died without getting full financial redress, according to data cited at the inquiry.

Nick Read insisted “a lot of time” has been spent “trying to work out how do we improve and speed up the process”, adding it was a “constant point of conversation” with the government.

Mr Read said it was “astonishing” the Post Office was involved in the administration of compensation schemes and said the “corporate view” was that the Post Office should not have anything to do with them.

When asked why that view was not communicated to the inquiry in meetings, Mr Read responded: “It’s a good question. I’m unsure why we didn’t make that very explicit…clearly we should have done.”

He said the lack of communication on this was a “failure”.

Mr Read also today told the inquiry how Post Office employees “implicated” in the Horizon scandal may “still be operating at the heart” of the business.

The inquiry continues.

Business

Scores of companies take AIM at Reeves over tax threat

Published

20 hours ago

October 10, 2024

admin

Scores of companies take AIM at Reeves over tax threat

More than 140 London-listed companies including Fevertree Drinks, Jet2, Mothercare and YouGov have warned the chancellor that uncertainty over the continuation of a vital tax incentive is damaging investor confidence ahead of this month’s Budget.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that AIM-quoted businesses generating combined profits of £1.5bn and employing more than 120,000 people have written to Rachel Reeves to urge the government to provide “clear support” for business relief (BR) in order to restore investors’ faith in the City’s junior exchange.

The letter represents a comprehensive warning to Ms Reeves from dozens of prominent companies about the impact of recent speculation about the abolition of BR for inheritance tax.

It is understood to have been organised at the behest of Octopus Investments, which is invested in a large portfolio of AIM stocks through its AIM Inheritance Tax Service.

Cavendish, the investment bank which acts for roughly a quarter of all AIM-listed companies, is said to have corralled many of the signatories to the letter.

Among the other backers of the plea to the chancellor, which was sent last month but has not been reported, were Arbuthnot Banking Group, Cake Box Holdings, FRP Advisory, Gateley, H&T Group, Marlowe, M&C Saatchi, Mortgage Advice Bureau, Nichols, Revolution Bars, Revolution Beauty, Science in Sport, Staffline, Tasty, Virgin Wines and Warpaint.

In it, they say that AIM “has given innovative businesses like ours the ability to access patient capital as we grow” since it was established 30 years ago.

“Underpinned by important tax reliefs like Business Relief on Inheritance Tax, AIM has become one of the most successful growth markets in the world.

“While there are a small number of specialist funds investing in companies listed on AIM, a significant percentage of our shareholder base is made up of individual investors.

“BR compensates those investors for some of the additional risks associated with investing in growing companies.

“This investment forms the foundation of AIM as a critical growth platform for smaller companies.”

The letter is the latest warning to Ms Reeves to emerge in recent weeks, with the bosses of leading brokers such as Peel Hunt and Dame Julia Hoggett, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, signalling that the viability of the junior London market would be threatened by the abolition of BR.

The Treasury has refused to comment on the intensifying speculation ahead of the Budge.

City sources said the companies’ collective letter had also been sent to other Treasury ministers as well as to Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary.

It was sent amid estimates that the chancellor could need to raise as much as an additional £25bn from tax rises in order to avoid a return to austerity.

“The nature of BR legislation means that qualifying investors, who are advised to make these investment decisions as part of estate planning, take a long-term approach because they have little incentive to sell in fear of a market downturn,” the letter added.

“Recent uncertainty around the future of BR, created by media speculation, has significantly impacted the ability of AIM businesses to raise capital.

“A lack of clarity on the future of this relief has damaged investor confidence, showing clearly the close link between the relief and the future success of the market.

It added that the chancellor should use her inaugural Budget to restate Treasury support for BR for qualifying AIM-listed shares.

“High-growth businesses are critical to our economy, in terms of job creation, innovation and, increasingly, the ability to reinvigorate parts of the UK that have suffered from a lack of investment.

“Clear government support for BR will restore confidence in the AIM market and help it to play a key role in driving economic growth, ensuring the UK remains competitive for high-potential businesses.”

Other signatories included Brave Bison Group, Brickability, Brooks Macdonald, Comptoir Group, Crimson Tide, Hargreaves Services, Intelligent Ultrasound, Music Magpie, Ramsdens, Safestay and Union Jack Oil.

Octopus Investments and Cavendish both declined to comment.