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

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

Published

19 hours 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.

Business

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn’t add up

Published

20 hours ago

April 25, 2025

admin

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn't add up

As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.

The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.

In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.

Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.

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

American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.

For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.

The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.

That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.

The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.

The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.

That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.

Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.

That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.

You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.

“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.

That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.

Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.

Business

Public failed by water regulators and government as bills rise, spending watchdog says

Published

1 day ago

April 25, 2025

admin

Public failed by water regulators and government as bills rise, spending watchdog says

Water regulators and the government have failed to provide a trusted and resilient industry at the same time as bills rise, the state spending watchdog has said.

Public trust in the water sector has reached a record low, according to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) on the privatised industry.

Not since monitoring began in 2011 has consumer trust been at such a level, it said.

At the same time, households face double-digit bill hikes over the next five years.

The last time bills rose at this rate was just before the global financial crash, between 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Regulation failure

All three water regulators – Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Drinking Water Inspectorate – and the government department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) have played a role in the failure, the NAO said, adding they do not know enough about the condition or age of water infrastructure and the level of funding needed to maintain it.

Since the utilities were privatised in 1989, the average rate of replacement for water assets is 125 years, the watchdog said. If the current pace is maintained, it will take 700 years to replace the existing water mains.

Water firms have grappled with leaky pipes and record sewage outflows into UK waterways in recent years, with enforcement action under way against all wastewater companies.

Despite there being three regulators tasked with water, there is no one responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater to prevent environmental harm, the report found.

Instead, regulation is reactive, fining firms when harm has already occurred.

Financial penalties and rewards, however, have not worked as water company performance hasn’t been “consistent or significantly improved” in recent years, the report said.

‘Gaps, inconsistencies, tension’

The NAO called for this to change and for a body to be tasked with the whole process and assets. At present, the Drinking Water Inspectorate monitors water coming into a house, but there is no entity looking at water leaving a property.

Similarly no body is tasked with cybersecurity for wastewater businesses.

As well as there being gaps, “inconsistent” watchdog responsibilities cause “tension” and overlap, the report found.

The Environment Agency has no obligation to balance customer affordability with its duty to the environment when it assesses plans, the NAO said.

Company and investment criticism

Regulators have also been blamed for failing to drive enough funding into the water sector.

From having spoken to investors through numerous meetings, the NAO learnt that confidence had declined, which has made it more expensive to invest in companies providing water.

Even investors found Ofwat’s five-yearly price review process “complex and difficult”, the report said.

Financial resilience of the industry has “weakened” with Ofwat having signalled concerns about the financial resilience of 10 of the 16 major water companies.

Most notably, the UK’s largest provider, Thames Water, faced an uncertain future and potential nationalisation before securing an emergency £3bn loan, adding to its already massive £16bn debt pile.

Water businesses have been overspending, with only some extra spending linked to high inflation in recent years, leading to rising bills, the NAO said.

Over the next 25 years, companies plan to spend £290bn on infrastructure and investment, while Ofwat estimates a further £52bn will be needed to deliver up to 30 water supply projects, including nine reservoirs.

What else is going on?

From today, a new government law comes into effect which could see water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills imprisoned for up to two years.

Such measures are necessary, Defra said, as some water companies have obstructed investigations and failed to hand over evidence on illegal sewage discharges, preventing crackdowns.

Meanwhile, the Independent Water Commission (IWC), led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, is carrying out the largest review of the industry since privatisation.

What the regulators and government say?

In response to the report, Ofwat said: “The NAO’s report is an important contribution to the debate about the future of the water industry.

“We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC’s wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We have worked closely with the National Audit Office in producing this report and welcome its substantial contribution to the debate on the future of water regulation.

“We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”

A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight.

“We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act, with new powers to ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses and bring tougher criminal charges against them if they break the law.”

Water UK, which represents the water firms, has been contacted for comment.