Connect with us

Published

on

This is starting to look a little… unnerving.

This morning the Bank of England tweaked its emergency intervention into the government bond (gilts) market for a second successive day.

The details are somewhat arcane: yesterday it doubled the amount it was offering to buy each day; today it said it would widen the stock of assets it is offering to buy. But what matters more is the big picture.

The government bond market is – in the UK and elsewhere – best thought of as the bedrock of the financial system.

The government borrows lots of money each year at very long durations and these bonds are bought by all sorts of investors to secure a low but (usually) reliable income over a long period of time.

Compared to other sorts of assets – such as the shares issued by companies or for that matter cryptocurrencies – government bonds are boring. Or at least, they’re supposed to be boring.

They don’t move all that much each day and the yield they offer – the interest rate implied by their prices – is typically much lower than most other asset classes.

More on Bank Of England

But recently the UK bond market (we call them gilts as a matter of tradition, short for gilt-edged securities, because in their earliest embodiment they were pieces of paper with golden edges) has been anything but boring.

In the wake of the mini-budget, the yield on gilts of various different durations leapt higher – much higher. The price of the gilts fell dramatically. That, ultimately, was what the Bank of England was originally responding to a couple of weeks ago.

But to understand what a tricky position it’s in, you need to zoom out even further. For while it’s tempting to blame everything on the government and its mini-budget, it’s fairer to see this as the straw that broke the market’s back. For there are three intersecting issues at play here.

The end of the low interest rate era

The first is that we are in the midst of a seismic economic moment.

For the past decade and a bit, we (here in the UK but also in the US, Eurozone and throughout most of the world) have become used to interest rates being incredibly low.

More than low, they were effectively negative, because in the wake of the financial crisis central banks around the world pumped trillions of dollars into the financial plumbing.

They mostly did so (in this case the method really matters) by buying up vast quantities of government debt. The Bank of England became the single biggest owner of UK gilts, at one point owning roughly a third of the UK’s national debt.

It was an emergency measure designed to prevent a catastrophic rerun of the Great Depression, but the medicine has proven incredibly difficult to wean ourselves off.

A few years ago, when the US Federal Reserve thought out loud about reversing quantitative easing (QE) – as the bond-buying programme is called – it triggered such a panic in bond markets that it immediately thought twice about it.

Since then, it and other central banks like the Bank of England have been as careful as possible not to frighten these markets. They have managed to end QE and, in the case of the Fed, have begun to reverse it. This is a very, very big deal.

Think about it for a moment.

All of a sudden, the world’s biggest buyers of arguably the world’s most important asset class have become big sellers of them.

In the UK, the Bank of England was due to begin its own reversal of QE round about now.

Tensions were, even before the government’s ham-fisted fiscal statement, about as high as they get in this normally-dull corner of financial markets.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Reliance on complex derivatives

The second issue (and this is something only a few financial analysts and residents of the bonds market fully appreciated up until a few weeks ago) is that the era of low interest rates had also driven investors into all sorts of strange strategies in an effort to make a return.

Most notably, some pension funds had begun to rely on complex derivatives to keep earning a decent return each year while complying with regulations.

These so-called Liability Driven Investment strategies were well-suited for the nine-times-out-of-ten when the gilts market was boring. But as interest rates began to rise this year – partly because inflation was rising and central banks were beginning to raise interest rates and reverse QE; partly because investors twigged that the next prime minister seemed quite keen on borrowing more – these strategies began to run into trouble.

They were feeling the strain even before Friday 23 September.

Hard to think of a worse moment for an uncosted fiscal plan

But that brings us to the third of the issues here: the mini-budget.

The government bond market was already, as we’ve established, in a sensitive position.

Markets were, as one adviser to the Truss team warned them, febrile. It is hard to think of many worse moments for a new, untried and untrusted government to introduce uncosted fiscal plans. Yet that is what Kwasi Kwarteng did in his mini-budget.

The problem wasn’t really any single specific policy, but the combination.

It wasn’t about the sums (or lack thereof) but a dramatic loss of credibility for the government.

All of a sudden, the UK, which is anyway very reliant on external funding from overseas investors, seemed to surrender the benefit of the doubt.

Traders began to pull money from the UK, pushing the pound lower and forcing interest rates in the bond market higher (after all, if people are reluctant to lend to you, you have to offer them a higher rate to persuade them).

The new Chancellor seems genuinely to have been completely taken unawares by the reaction to his plan.

Yet the reality is that it so happened (in fiscal terms at least) to be about the worst possible pitch at the worst possible time. And it pushed up interest rates on government debt dramatically.

Read more:
Renewed focus on pension fund investment strategy following Bank of England’s intervention in gilt market
How a pensions technicality threatened to undermine the entire financial system

istock bank of england

Wave of defaults could lead to a total breakdown of system

As I say, this was far from the only thing going on in markets.

On top of all the above, there were and are question marks about whether the Bank of England is acting fast enough to clamp down on inflation.

But these questions, and many others, were effectively swamped by the catastrophic surge in interest rates following the mini-budget.

Catastrophic because the increase in rates was so sharp it threatened the very functioning of the gilts market – this bedrock of the financial system.

And for those liability-driven investors in the pensions sector, it threatened to cause a wave of defaults which could, the Bank of England feared, lead to a total breakdown of the system within days or even hours.

This fear of what it called a “run dynamic” – a kind of wholesale equivalent to what we saw with Northern Rock, where a firesale of assets causes values to spiral ever downwards – sparked it into action.

It intervened the Wednesday after the mini-budget, offering to buy £65bn worth of the longer-dated gilts most affected. The intervention, it said, was taken to prevent the financial system from coming to harm.

But the method of intervention was quite significant.

After all, wasn’t buying bonds (with printed money) precisely what the Bank had been doing for the past decade or so through its QE programme?

Well in one sense… yes. The Bank insisted this was different: that this was not about injecting cash into the economy to get it moving but to deal forensically with a specific issue gumming up the markets. Financial stability, not monetary policy.

Even so, the paradox is still hard to escape. All of a sudden the Bank has gone from promising to sell a bucket load of bonds to promising to buy them.

Market reaction

The initial market reaction was overwhelmingly encouraging: the pound rose and interest rates on government bonds fell.

It was precisely what the Bank would have wanted – and most encouragingly it seemed to be driven not by the amount of cash the Bank was putting in (actually surprisingly few investors took up its offer to buy bonds), but sentiment.

The vicious circle precipitated by the mini-budget seemed to be turning around.

But in the past few days of trading, things have unravelled again.

The pound has fallen; the yields on bonds have risen, back more or less to where they were shortly before the Bank intervened a couple of weeks ago. It is unnerving.

And this brings us back to where we started. The Bank has bolstered its intervention a couple of times but it hasn’t brought yields down all that much – indeed, quite the contrary.

As of this lunchtime Tuesday the yields on long-dated UK government bonds were even higher than they were 24 hours earlier.

Why? One obvious issue is that the Bank’s intervention is strictly time-limited. It is due to expire at the end of this week. That raises a few other questions. First, will the pension funds reliant on those liability driven investments have untangled themselves by then? No-one is entirely sure. For a sense of how worried investors are about this, just look at what happened to the pound tonight after the Bank’s governor, Andrew Bailey, insisted the emergency programme will indeed end on Friday. It plummeted off a cliff-edge, instantly losing almost two cents against the dollar.

Second, will the government have become more credible in the market’s eyes by then? Almost certainly not. Aside from anything else, it isn’t due to present its plans for dealing with the public finances until the end of this month.

Third, what does all this mean for monetary policy and the end of QE? If we are to take them at their word, after ending this scheme the Bank will shortly begin the process of selling off bonds all over again.

So, one day they’re gearing up to be a massive seller; the next a massive buyer; the next a massive seller all over again.

Little matter that the stated reasons for the bond buying/selling are different. From the market’s perspective, no one is quite sure where they stand anymore.

In this final sense, the UK has unwittingly turned itself into a kind of laboratory for the epoch we’re in right now.

Everyone was expecting bumps in the road as the era of easy monetary policy came to an end.

It seems we are currently experiencing some of those bumps. And it just so happened that, thanks in large part to its new government, the UK found itself careering towards those bumps rather than braking before hitting them.

Continue Reading

Business

M&S reveals cost of cyber attack as profit almost wiped out

Published

on

By

M&S reveals cost of cyber attack as profit almost wiped out

The cyber attack on high street department store Marks and Spencer is expected to directly cost roughly £136m.

The figure is only the cost of immediate incident systems response and recovery, as well as specialist legal and professional services support.

Combined with a loss in sales, as the retailer’s online systems were out of action from Easter into the summer, statutory profit before tax at the business has been nearly wiped out for the first half of the year.

This profit measure dropped from £391.9m last year to £3.4m this year. Statutory profit before tax is the official profit figure reported in a company’s financial statements before it paid tax, used for tax and legal purposes.

About £100m is being claimed back in insurance for the cyberattack, M&S said in its market update.

Using a different profit measure – the M&S group’s adjusted profit before tax – the figure is more than half that of a year earlier, down from £413m to £184m.

Sales were hit as online shopping was unavailable from the April attack date until June. Some shelves were also empty in the days after the attack.

More on Cyber Attacks

Ransomware hackers broke into M&S systems by tricking employees at a third-party contractor.

The attack was just one of a series that struck major British businesses.

The Co-Op, Jaguar Land Rover and Harrods all had operations interrupted by cyber criminals.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Business

Chancellor Rachel Reeves blames other people’s mistakes for her predicament but she bears some responsibility

Published

on

By

Chancellor Rachel Reeves blames other people's mistakes for her predicament but she bears some responsibility

To say this wasn’t the plan is an understatement.

When Rachel Reeves said last year (and many times since) that she had no intention of coming back to the British people with yet more tax rises, she meant it.

Money blog: Infamous trader bets millions on AI bubble bursting

But now the question ahead of the budget later this month is not so much whether taxes will rise, but which taxes, and by how much? Indeed, there’s growing speculation that the chancellor will be forced to break her manifesto pledge not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Chancellor questioned by Sky News

Her argument, made in her news conference on Tuesday morning, is that she is in this position in large part because of other people’s mistakes, primarily those of the Conservative Party.

But while it’s certainly true that a significant chunk of the likely downgrade to her fiscal position reflects the fact that the “trend growth rate” – the average speed of productivity growth – has dropped in recent years due to all sorts of issues, including Brexit, COVID-19 and the state of the labour market, she certainly bears some responsibility.

A problem that is some of her own making

More on Rachel Reeves

First off, she established the fiscal rules against which she is being marked by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Second, she decided to leave herself only a wafer-thin margin against those rules.

Third, even if it weren’t for the OBR’s productivity downgrade, it’s quite likely the chancellor would have broken those fiscal rules, due to the various U-turns by the government on welfare reforms, winter fuel, and extra giveaways they haven’t yet provided the funding for, such as reversing the two-child benefit cap.

Read more:
Post Office hero lands seven-figure Horizon payout
UK joins quantum partnership in bid to win race for national security

Now, at this stage, no one, save for the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, really knows the scale of the task facing the chancellor. And in the coming weeks, those numbers could change significantly.

But it’s becoming increasingly clear, from the political signalling if nothing else, that the government is rolling the pitch for bad news later this month.

Indeed, for all that this government pledged to bring an end to austerity, a combination of higher taxes and lower spending will be highly unpopular, not to mention deeply controversial. And while the chancellor will seek to blame her predecessors, it remains to be seen whether the public will be entirely convinced.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office hero Bates lands seven-figure Horizon payout

Published

on

By

Post Office hero Bates lands seven-figure Horizon payout

Sir Alan Bates has reached a seven-figure deal to settle his claim over the Post Office Horizon scandal, more than 20 years after he began campaigning over what turned into one of Britain’s biggest miscarriages of justice.

Sky News has learnt that the government has agreed a deal with the former sub-postmaster after handing him what he described as a “take it or leave it” offer during the spring.

Sir Alan has previously said publicly that that proposal amounted to 49.2% of his original claim.

One source suggested that his final settlement may have been worth between £4m and £5m, implying that Sir Alan’s claim could have been in the region of £10m, although those figures could not be corroborated on Tuesday morning.

A government spokesperson said: “We pay tribute to Sir Alan Bates for his long record of campaigning on behalf of victims and have now paid out over £1.2bn to more than 9,000 victims.

“We can confirm that Sir Alan’s claim has reached the end of the scheme process and been settled.”

Sky News has attempted to reach Sir Alan for comment about the settlement of his claim.

Read more:
Victims say they’re treated like ‘second class citizens’
Who are the key figures in the scandal?

Victim died days before compensation letter arrived

Sir Alan led efforts over many years to prove that the Horizon software system supplied by Fujitsu, the Japanese technology company, was faulty.

Hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted between 1999 and 2015, with scores of people either ending their own lives or making attempts to do so.

However, it was only after ITV turned their fight for justice into a drama, Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, that the government accelerated plans to deliver redress to victims.

Even so, the compensation scheme set up to administer redress has been mired in controversy.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will Post Office victims be cleared?

Writing in The Sunday Times in May, Sir Alan described the process as “quasi-kangaroo courts in which the Department for Business and Trade sits in judgement of the claims and alters the goalposts as and when it chooses”.

“Claims are, and have been, knocked back on the basis that legally you would not be able to make them, or that the parameters of the scheme do not extend to certain items.”

Sir Alan had previously been made compensation offers worth just one-sixth of his claim – which he had labelled “derisory”, with a second offer amounting to a third of the sum he was seeking.

Sir Ross Cranston, a former High Court judge, adjudicates on cases where a claimant disputes a compensation offer from the government and then objects to the results of a review by an independent panel.

In 2017, Sir Alan and a group of 555 sub-postmasters sued the Post Office in the High Court, ultimately winning a £58m settlement.

However, swingeing legal fees left the group with just £12m of that sum, prompting ministers to establish a separate compensation scheme amid a growing outcry.

A significant number of other sub-postmasters have also complained publicly about the pace, and outcome, of the compensation process.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘This waiting is just unbearable’

The first volume of Sir Wyn Williams’s public inquiry into the Horizon scandal was published in July, and concluded that at least 13 people may have taken their own lives after being accused of wrongdoing, even though the Post Office and Fujitsu knew the Horizon system was flawed.

The miscarriage of justice left the Post Office’s reputation, and that of former bosses including chief executive Paula Vennells, in tatters.

A subsequent corporate governance mess under the last government further dragged the Post Office’s name through the mud, with the then chief executive, Nick Read, accused of being absorbed by his own remuneration.

In recent months, the government has outlined a further redress scheme aimed at compensating victims of the Capture accounting software which was in use at Post Offices between 1992 and 2000.

Since then, a new management team has been appointed and has set the objective of boosting postmasters’ pay and overhauling technology systems to enable Post Office branches to offer a broader range of services.

Continue Reading

Trending