Connect with us

Published

on

Few materials matter quite as much as steel and aluminium.

Steel, an alloy of iron and carbon, is the main metallic ingredient in the structures we live in and the bridges we build. If it’s not made of steel it’s made with steel.

Aluminium, on the other hand, is a wonder material we use with wild abandon these days. A light metal we use in planes and trains, in the bodies of electric vehicles and in those high voltage power lines we’ll need so many of to provide electricity in the coming years.

Money blog: The 10 jobs crying out for applicants

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Prices to rise for planes, trains and automobiles

All of which is to say these metals are the bedrock for much of the world around us. And like most developed economies, the US is far from independent when it comes to these materials. The degree of dependence on other countries varies between them.

According to the US Geological Survey, America’s “net import reliance ratio” for aluminium is close to 50%, implying it is deeply dependent on imports to satisfy demand among its companies. The degree of dependence is considerably lower for steel – only a little over 10%.

At least part of the idea behind tariffs is to bring some production back to the US, but imposing them will have consequences.

Molten aluminium is poured on the day of the completion of a 330 million pound deal to buy Britain's last remaining Aluminium smelter in Fort William Lochaber Scotland, Britain December 19, 2016.
Image:
Molten aluminium. Pic: Reuters

What kinds of consequences? Well, at its simplest, tariffs push up prices. This is, when you think about it, blindingly obvious. A tariff is a tax on a good entering the country. So if aluminium and steel are going up in price then that means, all else equal, that the cost of making everything from aircraft wings to steel rivets also goes up. That in turn means consumers end up paying the price – and if a company can’t make ends meet in the face of these tariffs, it means job losses – possibly within the very industrial sectors the president wants to protect.

Donald Trump stands on stage with steelworkers as he speaks at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Pic: AP
Image:
Donald Trump stands on stage with steelworkers as he speaks at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania during the US election. Pic: AP

So says the economic theory. But in practice, economics isn’t everything. There are countless examples throughout history of countries defying economic logic in search of other goals. Perhaps they want to improve their national self-reliance in a given product; perhaps they want to ensure certain jobs in cherished areas or industries are protected. But nothing comes for free, and even if Donald Trump‘s tariffs succeed in persuading domestic producers to smelt more aluminium or steel, such things don’t happen overnight. In the short run, it’s hard to see how these tariffs wouldn’t be significantly inflationary.

Donald Trump spoke to reporters on Air Force One: Reuters
Image:
Donald Trump on Air Force One: Reuters

There’s a deeper issue here, which comes back (as so many of Mr Trump’s economic measures do) to China. Both the steel and aluminium markets have faced enormous influxes of cheap Chinese metals in recent years – to the extent that in recent months those Chinese imports have actually been cheaper than the cost of production in Europe.

To some extent, that’s a consequence of high European energy costs, but it’s partly down to the fact that China subsidises its producers more than most other countries around the world. Indeed, of all the products in the world, few have had as many cases lodged at the World Trade Organisation as steel.

Read more:
Why China could benefit most from Trump’s tariffs
Tax hikes and financial gloom ‘acting as brakes’ on jobs

Donald Trump shakes hands with China's President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in 2019. Pic: AP
Image:
Donald Trump shakes hands with China’s President Xi Jinping in 2019 – as in his first term, many of his policies focus on China. Pic: AP

But while it’s worth being aware of these dynamics, which are pushing cheap steel into many markets, it’s also worth noting that the US actually imports far less from China than you might have thought. The vast majority of American aluminium imports, for instance, come from Canada rather than China. Any tariffs on the metal would further undermine the economic relationship between these parts of North America.

Much, of course, now depends on the structure and detail of these tariffs – and the extent to which they’re actually implemented. As with his threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico, these ones raise as many questions as they answer. That is likely to be the way of things for much of this presidential term.

Continue Reading

Business

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

Published

on

By

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.

More from Money

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.

Continue Reading

Business

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

Published

on

By

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.

More on Electoral Dysfunction

“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”.

Continue Reading

Business

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

Published

on

By

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.

More on Post Office Scandal

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.

Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens

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.

Continue Reading

Trending