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

Barclays fined £40m over ‘reckless’ financial crisis capital raising

Published

on

By

Barclays fined £40m over 'reckless' financial crisis capital raising

Barclays has been fined £40m over capital raising that averted its need for taxpayer aid during the 2008 financial crisis.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that the bank should have disclosed more details to the stock market about the £11.8bn in funding, from Qatari and other sovereign investors, that it had previously described as “reckless” and lacking integrity.

The penalty followed a protracted investigation that began in 2013 but was held up by criminal proceedings brought by the Serious Fraud Office that led to the acquittal of all defendants charged, including Barclays.

A decision by the bank not to refer the FCA’s enforcement case to an Upper Tribunal meant that the watchdog’s planned fine could be imposed.

Its regulatory action concerned Barclays’ navigation of the events of 2008 when the-then Labour government took huge stakes in major lenders, including Lloyds and RBS – now NatWest – to prevent a collapse of the banking system.

The FCA said of its action: “The events in 2008 were of national importance as banks sought emergency recapitalisation.

“The FCA has a primary objective to ensure market integrity. Banks should treat their obligations to the market and shareholders seriously.”

More from Money

Barclays was yet to comment.

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

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Business

‘When you hit profits, you hit growth’: Businesses criticise biggest budget tax increase in decades

Published

on

By

'When you hit profits, you hit growth': Businesses criticise biggest budget tax increase in decades

Tax rises announced during the recent budget will hit businesses rather than encourage growth, the head of one of the UK’s most prominent business groups will warn on Monday.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has joined a choir of voices opposing Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s fiscal measures, which the Labour Party claims are needed to plug a £22bn “black hole” left by 14 years of Tory government.

Labour put growth at the heart of their campaigning during the last general election, but business believe the £40bn tax rises announced last month – the largest such increase at a budget since John Major’s government in 1993 – will stifle investment.

Rain Newton-Smith, who heads the CBI, is expected to say at the group’s annual conference in London that “too many businesses are having to compromise on their plans for growth”.

She will say: “Across the board, in so many sectors, margins are being squeezed and profits are being hit by a tough trading environment that just got tougher.

“And here’s the rub, profits aren’t just extra money for companies to stuff in a pillowcase. Profits are investment.”

Ms Newton-Smith will add: “When you hit profits, you hit competitiveness, you hit investment, you hit growth.”

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which monitors the government’s spending plans and performance, has previously said most of the burden from the tax increase will be passed on to workers through lower wages, and consumers through higher prices.

Last week, dozens of retail bosses signed a letter to the chancellor warning of dire consequences for the economy and jobs if she pushes ahead with budget plans.

Read more from Sky News:
How much does it cost to freeze your eggs and can it go wrong?

Storm Bert: Father rescues son from sinking car

Up to 79 signatories joined British Retail Consortium’s (BRC’s) scathing response to the fiscal announcement, which claimed Labour’s tax rises would increase their costs by £7bn next year alone.

It warned that higher costs, from measures such as higher employer National Insurance contributions and National Living Wage increases next year, would be passed on to shoppers and hit employment and investment.

The letter, backed by the UK boss of the country’s largest retailer Tesco, said: “The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

From October: ‘Raising taxes was not an easy decision’

‘Businesses will now have to make a choice’

A few days after the budget, Chancellor Reeves admitted she was “wrong” to say higher taxes were not needed during the election campaign – as she warned businesses may have to make less money or pay staff less to cover a tax increase.

But she claimed the previous government had “hid” the “huge black hole” in finances and she only discovered the extent of it once her party was voted in.

She told Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “Yes, businesses will now have to make a choice, whether they will absorb that through efficiency and productivity gains, whether it will be through lower profits or perhaps through lower wage growth.”

Continue Reading

Business

ITV back in spotlight as suitors screen potential bids

Published

on

By

ITV back in spotlight as suitors screen potential bids

Potential suitors have again begun circling ITV, Britain’s biggest terrestrial commercial broadcaster, after a prolonged period of share price weakness and renewed questions about its long-term strategic destiny.

Sky News has learnt that a number of possible bidders for parts or all of the company, whose biggest shows include Love Island, have in recent weeks held early-stage discussions about teaming up to pursue a potential transaction.

TV industry sources said this weekend that CVC Capital Partners and a major European broadcaster – thought to be France’s Groupe TF1 – were among those which had been starting to study the merits of a potential offer.

The sources added that RedBird Capital-owned All3Media and Mediawan, which is backed by the private equity giant KKR, were also on the list of potential suitors for the ITV Studios production arm.

One cautioned this weekend that none of the work on potential bids was at a sufficiently advanced stage to require disclosure under the UK’s stock market disclosure rules, and suggested that ITV’s board – chaired by Andrew Cosslett – had not received any recent unsolicited approaches.

That meant that the prospects of any formal approach materialising was highly uncertain.

The person added, however, that Dame Carolyn McCall, ITV’s long-serving chief executive, had been discussing with the company’s financial advisers the merits of a demerger or other form of separation of its two main business units.

More from Money

Its main banking advisers are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Robey Warshaw.

ITV’s shares are languishing at just 65.5p, giving the whole company a market capitalisation of £2.51bn.

The stock rose more than 5% on Friday amid vague market chatter about a possible takeover bid.

Bankers and analysts believe that ITV Studios, which made Disney+’s hit show, Rivals, would be worth more than the entire company’s market capitalisation in a break-up of ITV.

People close to the situation said that under one possible plan being studied, CVC could be interested in acquiring ITV Studios, with a European broadcast partner taking over its broadcasting arm, including the ITVX streaming platform.

“At the right price, it would make sense if CVC wanted the undervalued production business, with TF1 wanting an English language streaming service in ITVX, along with the cashflows of the declining channels,” one broadcasting industry veteran said this weekend.

“They would only get the assets, though, in a deal worth double the current share price.”

Takeover speculation about ITV, which competes with Sky News’ parent company, has been a recurring theme since the company was created from the merger of Carlton and Granada more than 20 years ago.

ITV said this month that it would seek additional cost savings of £20m this year as it continued to deal with the fallout from last year’s strikes by Hollywood writers and actors.

It added that revenues at the Studios arm would decline over the current financial year, with advertising revenues sharply lower in the fourth quarter than in the same period a year earlier because of the tough comparison with 2023’s Rugby World Cup.

Allies of Dame Carolyn, who has run ITV since 2018, argue that she has transformed ITV, diversifying further into production and overhauling its digital capabilities.

The majority of ITV’s revenue now comes from profitable and growing areas, including ITVX and the Studios arm, they said.

By 2026, those areas are expected to account for more than two-thirds of the group’s sales.

This year, its production arm was responsible for the most-viewed drama of the year on any channel or platform, Mr Bates versus The Post Office.

In its third-quarter update earlier this month, Dame Carolyn said the company’s “good strategic progress has continued in the first nine months of 2024 driven by strong execution and industry-leading creativity”.

“ITV Studios is performing well despite the expected impact of both the writer’s strike and a softer market from free-to-air broadcasters.”

She said the unit would achieve record profits this year.

ITV and CVC declined to comment, while TF1, RedBird and Mediawan did not respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending