Why the financial market mood has shifted against the UK

Published

4 months ago

January 10, 2025

admin

As the dust settles on a tumultuous week for gilts (UK government bonds) and sterling – a week that has raised serious questions about chancellor Rachel Reeves’s stewardship of the economy – the big question many people will be asking is why investor sentiment has shifted so much against the UK in the past week.

Following on from that is what Ms Reeves should try to do about it.

The first point to make – and indeed it is one the government has been making – is that there has been a broad sell-off in government bonds around the world this week. Yields, which go up as the price of a bond falls, have been rising not only in the case of gilts but also on bonds issued by the likes of the US, Japan, France and Germany.

That reflects the fact that investors are changing their assumptions about the path of inflation this year and, in turn, how central banks like the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England respond.

Money latest: Pound hit steadies as chancellor considers spending cuts

Inflation is now expected to be stickier around the world due to a combination of factors, of which by far the biggest is the tariffs the incoming Trump administration is expected to introduce. Those tariffs will push up the price of goods bought by American consumers and, if America’s trading partners respond with tariffs of their own, for consumers elsewhere. US Treasuries have also been under pressure due to expectations that Mr Trump will raise US borrowing sharply.

That said, gilt yields have been rising by more than yields on their international counterparts, reflecting the fact that investors think the UK has specific issues with inflation. The increase in employer’s national insurance contributions (NICs) announced by Ms Reeves in her Halloween budget will be highly inflationary because they will push up the cost of employing people.

The chief executives of some of the UK’s biggest retailers – Lord Wolfson at Next, Ken Murphy at Tesco, Stuart Machin at Marks & Spencer and Simon Roberts at Sainsbury’s – this week repeated their warnings that these higher costs will feed through to higher prices.

Another reason why gilt yields have risen more than those of their international counterparts is the UK’s particular fiscal position and its poor growth prospects.

Yes, other countries have as poor prospects for growth as the UK or as bad a debt situation. The US national debt, for example, is 123% of US GDP while Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of 250%. The UK, with a debt to GDP ratio of just under 99%, doesn’t look so bad by comparison. However, as the market in US Treasuries is the biggest and most liquid in the world and the US dollar is the global reserve currency, investors seldom have hesitation about lending to the US government. Similarly, in the case of Japan, most of its government debt is owned by Japanese savers – encapsulated by the mythical figure of ‘Mrs Watanabe’.

The UK does not have that luxury and, accordingly, has to rely on what Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, memorably described in a 2017 speech as “the kindness of strangers” to fund its borrowing (he was talking on that occasion about the UK’s current account deficit rather than its fiscal deficit, but the point holds).

In summary, then, investors are demanding a higher premium for the added risk of holding gilts. That perceived risk – as the former prime minister Liz Truss has gleefully been pointing out – means that yields on some gilts are now even higher than they spiked following her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s ill-fated mini budget in September 2022.

Investors are also sceptical about the UK economy’s ability to grow its way out of this predicament. While the government’s proposals to invest in infrastructure have been welcomed by investors, they have also noted that much of the extra borrowing being taken on by Ms Reeves in her budget was to fund big pay rises for public sector workers, which – rightly or wrongly – are not perceived to be as good a use of government money as, say, investing in improvements to roads or power grids.

So what does Ms Reeves do?

Well, as the old joke about the Irishman guiding a lost tourist puts it, she “wouldn’t start from here”. The chancellor’s big mistake was to box herself in during the general election campaign by ruling out increases in income tax, employees’ national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. She could easily, for example, have promised to unwind her predecessor Jeremy Hunt’s cut in employee’s national insurance – which was rightly recognised by most voters as a pre-election bribe.

Still, she is where she is, so the chancellor’s main job now will be to convince investors that the UK is on a stable fiscal footing. With the recent rise in gilt yields – the implied government borrowing cost – threatening to eliminate the chancellor’s headroom to meet her fiscal rules, that is likely to mean public sector spending cuts or higher taxes. The former option is more likely than the latter and not least because Ms Reeves is committed to just one ‘fiscal event’ – when taxes are raised – per year and that will be her budget this autumn.

The Bank of England is also going to have a big part to play here in reinforcing to markets its determination to bringing inflation down to its target range – which means borrowers should not expect as many interest rate cuts in 2025 as they were, say, six months ago.

The Bank may also slow the pace at which it is selling its own gilt holdings (accumulated largely during the ‘quantitative easing’ on which it embarked after the global financial crisis) which would also ease the downward pressure on gilts.

Also coming to the chancellor’s aid, in all likelihood, will be a weakening in the pound which should, all other things being equal, help make gilts more appetising to international investors.

All of this underlines though, unfortunately, that there is only so much the chancellor can do.

Business

Chair candidates battle to check in at Premier Inn-owner Whitbread

Published

12 hours ago

April 27, 2025

admin

Chair candidates battle to check in at Premier Inn-owner Whitbread

Two chairs of FTSE-100 companies are vying to succeed Adam Crozier at the top of Whitbread, the London-listed group behind the Premier Inn hotel chain.

Sky News has learnt that Christine Hodgson, who chairs water company Severn Trent, and Andrew Martin, chair of the testing and inspection group Intertek, are the leading contenders for the Whitbread job.

Mr Crozier, who has chaired the leisure group since 2018, is expected to step down later this year.

The search, which has been taking place for several months, is expected to conclude in the coming weeks, according to one City source.

Ms Hodgson has some experience of the leisure industry, having served on the board of Ladbrokes Coral Group until 2017, while Mr Martin was a senior executive at the contract caterer Compass Group and finance chief at the travel agent First Choice Holidays.

Under Mr Crozier’s stewardship, Whitbread has been radically reshaped, selling its Costa Coffee subsidiary to The Coca-Cola Company in 2019 for nearly £4bn.

The company has also seen off an activist campaign spearheaded by Elliott Advisers, while Mr Crozier orchestrated the appointment of Dominic Paul, its chief executive, following Alison Brittain’s retirement.

It said last year that it sees potential to grow the network from 86,000 UK bedrooms to 125,000 over the next decade or so.

Mr Crozier is one of Britain’s most seasoned boardroom figures, and now chairs BT Group and Kantar, the market research and data business backed by Bain Capital and WPP Group.

He previously ran the Football Association, ITV and – in between – Royal Mail Group.

On Friday, shares in Whitbread closed at £25.41, giving the company a market capitalisation of about £4.5bn.

Whitbread declined to comment this weekend.

Business

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

Published

2 days ago

April 26, 2025

admin

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.

Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.

The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.

Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.

It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.

In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.

“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.

“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”

Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.

His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.

While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.

The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.

Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.

The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.

Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.

More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.

Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.

Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.

In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.

The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.

Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.

“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.

“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.

“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.

“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.

In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.

The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.

HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.

“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.

“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”

The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.

Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.

Business

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

Published

3 days ago

April 25, 2025

admin

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.

Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.

Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.

Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.

Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.

The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.

In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.

A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.

Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.

A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.