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

HSBC ‘being attacked all the time’ by online criminals – as boss ‘kept awake at night’ by cyber threat

Published

on

By

HSBC 'being attacked all the time' by online criminals - as boss 'kept awake at night' by cyber threat

The boss of one of the UK’s biggest banks says it is being attacked “all the time” by online criminals and he is kept up at night by cyber threats.

“It does keep me awake,” HSBC UK chief executive Ian Stuart told the Treasury Committee of MPs.

“Because we can be attacked and we are being attacked all the time.”

Money blog: ‘Highest ever’ bank switching offer launches

Mr Stuart said banks were spending “enormous” sums of hundreds of millions of pounds on IT systems – the biggest expense in their businesses.

“Cybersecurity is now very much at the top of our agenda,” he added.

Ian Stuart, chief executive of HSBC UK, appearing before the Treasury Committee. Pic: PA
Image:
Ian Stuart, chief executive of HSBC UK, appearing before the Treasury Committee. Pic: PA

Concerns were also highlighted by Lloyds Bank chief executive Charlie Nunn, who said financial fraud will get worse if banks cannot intervene to prevent it and social media and telecoms companies are not incentivised to halt it.

Mr Nunn said the UK “has become the home of fraud”, adding that the number of victims is “pretty disturbing” and “individual cases are harrowing”.

Major high street businesses, including M&S and the Co-op, have been hit by cyber attacks in recent weeks and had their operations impacted.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who is behind M&S cyberattack?

Cybersecurity threats, however, were not behind the several-day outage at Barclays at the end of January, its UK chief executive Vim Maru said.

He added: “We’ve learned the lessons. We’re acting on the lessons, both work done internally, but also with help from third parties as well.

Account holders across the UK have suffered a spate of IT glitches from different banks around paydays this year.

Tens of millions of pounds on IT have been spent and customer glitches have fallen, Mr Maru said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Could ageing tech be behind banking outages?

He added that the problem at Barclays was a software issue, saying: “We put a fix in place that means that we won’t have a recurrence.”

Continue Reading

Business

Steel tycoon Gupta in last-ditch bid to rescue UK empire

Published

on

By

Steel tycoon Gupta in last-ditch bid to rescue UK empire

The steel tycoon Sanjeev Gupta is mounting a last-ditch bid to salvage his British operations after seeing an emergency plea for government support rejected.

Sky News has learnt that Mr Gupta’s Liberty Speciality Steels UK (SSUK) arm is seeking to adjourn a winding-up petition scheduled to be heard in court on Wednesday.

The petition is reported to have been brought by Harsco Metals Group, a supplier of materials and labour to SSUK, and is said to be supported by other trade creditors.

Unless the adjournment is granted, Mr Gupta faces the prospect of seeing SSUK forced into compulsory liquidation.

That would raise questions over the future of roughly 1,450 more steel industry jobs, weeks after the government stepped in to rescue the larger British Steel amid a row with its Chinese owner over the future of its Scunthorpe steelworks.

If Mr Gupta’s operations do enter compulsory liquidation, the Official Receiver would appoint a special manager to run the operations while a buyer is sought.

A Whitehall insider said talks had taken place in recent days involving Mr Gupta’s executives and the Insolvency Service.

More from Money

Steel industry sources said the government could conceivably be interested in reuniting the Rotherham plant of SSUK with British Steel’s Scunthorpe site because of the industrial synergies between them, although it was unclear whether any such discussions had been held.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Mr Gupta is said to have explored whether he could persuade the government to step in and support SSUK using the legislation enacted last month to take control of British Steel’s operations.

Whitehall insiders said, however, that Mr Gupta’s overtures had been rebuffed.

He had previously sought government aid during the pandemic but that plea was also rejected by ministers.

The SSUK division operates across sites including at Rotherham in south Yorkshire and Bolton in Lancashire.

It makes highly engineered steel products for use in sectors such as aerospace, automotive and oil and gas.

A restructuring plan due to be launched last week was abandoned at the eleventh hour after failing to secure support from creditors of Greensill, the collapsed supply chain finance provider to which Mr Gupta was closely tied.

Under that plan, creditors, including HM Revenue and Customs, would have been forced to write off a significant chunk of the money they are owed.

The company said last week that it had invested nearly £200m in the last five years into the UK steel industry, but had faced “significant challenges due to soaring energy costs and an over-reliance on cheap imports, negatively impacting the performance of all UK steel companies”.

It adds: The court’s ability to sanction the plan depended on finalisation of an agreement with creditors.

“This has not proved possible in an acceptable timeframe, and so Liberty has decided to withdraw the plan ahead of the sanction hearing on May 15 and will now quickly consider alternative options.”

One source close to Liberty Steel acknowledged that it was running out of time to salvage the business.

They said, however, that an adjournment of Wednesday’s hearing to consider the winding-up petition could yet buy the company sufficient breathing space to stitch together an alternative rescue deal.

A Liberty Steel spokesperson said on Tuesday: “Discussions continue with creditors.

“Liberty understands the concern this will create for Speciality Steel UK colleagues and remains committed to doing all it can to maintain the Speciality Steel UK business.”

The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business and Trade have also been contacted for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Daily Mail-owner Rothermere eyes minority Telegraph stake in RedBird deal

Published

on

By

Daily Mail-owner Rothermere eyes minority Telegraph stake in RedBird deal

The publisher of the Daily Mail has held talks in recent days about taking a minority stake in the Telegraph newspapers as part of a deal to end the two-year impasse over their ownership.

Sky News has learnt that Lord Rothermere, who controls Daily Mail & General Trust (DMGT), was in detailed negotiations late last week which would have seen him taking a 9.9% stake in the Telegraph titles.

It was unclear on Monday whether the talks were still live or whether they would result in a deal, with one adviser suggesting that the discussions may have faltered.

One insider said that if DMGT did acquire a stake in the Telegraph, the transaction would be used as a platform to explore the sharing of costs across the two companies.

They would, however, remain editorially independent.

Sources said that RedBird and IMI, whose joint venture owns a call option to convert debt secured against the Telegraph into equity, were hoping to announce a deal for the future ownership of the media group this week, potentially on Thursday.

However, the insider suggested that a transaction could yet be struck without any involvement from DMGT.

More from Money

The progress in the talks to seal new ownership for the right-leaning titles comes days after the government said it would allow foreign state investors to hold stakes of up to 15% in British national newspapers.

That would pave the way for Abu Dhabi royal family-controlled IMI to own 15% of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph – a prospect which has sparked outrage from critics including the former Spectator editor Fraser Nelson.

The decision to set the ownership threshold at 15% follows an intensive lobbying campaign by newspaper industry executives concerned that a permanent outright ban could cut off a vital source of funding to an already-embattled industry.

RedBird Capital, the US-based fund, has already said it is exploring the possibility of taking full control of the Telegraph, while IMI would have – if the status quo had been maintained – been forced to relinquish any involvement in the right-leaning broadsheets.

Other than RedBird, a number of suitors for the Telegraph have expressed interest but struggled to raise the funding for a deal.

The most notable of these has been Dovid Efune, owner of The New York Sun, who has been trying for months to raise the £550m sought by RedBird IMI to recoup its outlay.

On Sunday, the Financial Times reported that Mr Efune has secured backing from Jeremy Hosking, the prominent City investor.

Another potential offer from Todd Boehly, the Chelsea Football Club co-owner, and media tycoon David Montgomery, has failed to materialise.

RedBird IMI paid £600m in 2023 to acquire a call option that was intended to convert into ownership of the Telegraph newspapers and The Spectator magazine.

That objective was thwarted by a change in media ownership laws – which banned any form of foreign state ownership – amid an outcry from parliamentarians.

The Spectator was then sold last year for £100m to Sir Paul Marshall, the hedge fund billionaire, who has installed Lord Gove, the former cabinet minister, as its editor.

The UAE-based IMI, which is controlled by the UAE’s deputy prime minister and ultimate owner of Manchester City Football Club, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, extended a further £600m to the Barclays to pay off a loan owed to Lloyds Banking Group, with the balance secured against other family-controlled assets.

Other bidders for the Telegraph had included Lord Saatchi, the former advertising mogul, who offered £350m, while Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail proprietor, pulled out of the bidding for control of his rival’s titles last summer amid concerns that he would be blocked on competition grounds.

The Telegraph’s ownership had been left in limbo by a decision taken by Lloyds Banking Group, the principal lender to the Barclay family, to force some of the newspapers’ related corporate entities into a form of insolvency proceedings.

DMGT, RedBird and IMI all declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Trending