Brexit, and the Finances of the Young

The national media continue to try to turn news into controversy. Their words are often incendiary and designed to provoke debate and therefore attention – as a means no doubt of promoting their publications. So their headlines become “verbal click-bait”.

As most people now read news on the internet, the publishers could be considered as acting as “trolls”. Here is the definition in Wikipedia of an internet troll: “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion…….”

Written words are not the only example. Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC has adopted a similar verbal approach in her reporting. It’s not just Labour party members who should be complaining about her hysterical style.

There were a couple of news items this week that caught my attention in this area. There were several comments on the report issued by the FCA on family finances. The report indicated that half of UK adults were “financially vulnerable” and that those in their 20s and 30s were reliant on borrowing (personal loans and credit card debt). It reported that one fifth of 25-34 year olds have no savings at all with many struggling to pay bills. But this was interpreted by some of the media as the new “generational divide”.

But was it not always so? I certainly don’t recall having much in the way of savings at the age of 30 and lived from month to month, sometimes using credit card debt. In other words, I doubt that the situation has been changing over time; although the elderly have become better off lately due to rising state pensions I am not convinced the young have been getting poorer. But the media like to put a “spin” on any news item to grab attention.

As the report shows, the elderly do have more savings as one might expect but they are not evenly distributed. One amusing statement in the report is “A high proportion of retirees do not know how much savings they have”.

It’s a report well worth reading although rather long at almost 200 pages. Here is one useful titbit of information from it: “Around one in five (22%) 45‑54 year olds hold a stocks and shares ISA and the same proportion hold shares or equities directly”. It would have been good to obtain more detail information on that but it just shows there are a lot of shareholders out there.

Another example of media hysteria is the reporting on the Brexit negotiations. Will it be a hard or soft Brexit? Will the bill be £20 billion or £100 billion? Are Tories threatening to quit if there is any compromise, or revolt against the rule of Theresa May? Will Jeremy Corbyn scupper the whole affair by underming the Bill going through Parliament to support it? Who really knows, but it all makes for good headlines.

The Financial Times has become one of the leaders in scare mongering over Brexit with regular articles of a polemic nature by Martin Wolf and Simon Kuper on the topic. The latest example was by Martin Wolf in yesterdays FT. Now I have never thought much of Mr Wolf’s opinions on financial matters since he supported the nationalisation of Northern Rock, but his latest article (headlined “Zombie ideas about Brexit that refuse to die”) is pure hysteria. I don’t mind the occasional editorial opinion piece on Brexit, or some reporting on the potential technical difficulties if not slanted, but this piece was just propoganda in essence. It pointed out all the difficulties associated with a “hard” Brexit where no trade deal is agreed beforehand, but that is well known and most folks do not think that is likely. It certainly did not give a balanced view of the arguments for or against Brexit and what our negotiating stance should be. In reality there is likely to be a compromise of some kind – that is what politics usually ends up being about – compromise after compromise. Indeed it is one of the frustratations of anyone in the political world that achieving revolutions, rather than compromise, is not just difficult but exceedingly time consuming.

It is certainly regrettable that the Financial Times, since its takeover by Nikkei in 2015 has become much more politicised, and there is less factual reporting and more opinion. Perhaps it is just pandering to the views of most of its readers (the London-centric financial players and international businessmen) but if they expect to influence politicians or the wider community they will be disappointed.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Back to the Jeremy Corbyn Future

With the latest revelations from the Labour Party conference, we now know what their policies are likely to be if elected. These include

  • Nationalisation of the railways and utilities (including National Grid).
  • Scrapping all Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deals by buying out the owners with Government debt.
  • Rent controls in the private housing sector.
  • Reform of leaseholds.
  • Workers in the gig economy will get full employment rights.
  • The NHS will get more money.
  • Student loan debts will be written off (at least it’s an “ambition”).

Now some of these policies are not totally daft (the last four for example), even if the cost is probably unaffordable at tens of billions of pounds. But for those of my readers who do not remember the times when we had rent controls, and nationalised industries back in the 1960s and 70s, let me remind you.

Rent controls meant that rents stayed low, but private rented housing pretty well disappeared as a result over the years from 1950 to 1960. Nobody would invest in rented housing when they could get better returns on other investments. Or it promoted the spread of Rachmanism where landlords would allow properties to run down and then use aggressive tactics to remove sitting tenants. In other words, a great example of the usual “unintended consequences” of economically illiterate policies.

The control of industries by politicians and civil servants created hopelessly inefficient industries like the nationalised railways, the car industry and the coal industry which should have been shrunk in size well before Mrs Thatcher took steps to do so.

There would of course be an enormous flight of capital from the UK if these policies were implemented, and it seems the shadow chancellor is already anticipating a run on the pound. What he could do about it other than get the IMF to bail us out is not clear. To remind my younger readers, this is exactly what happened back in 1976 under Prime Minister James Callaghan when the IMF enforced massive cuts in the UK’s budget deficit as a condition of a large loan (the UK had been living beyond its means for some years, and building up large debts, very much like recent years under another socialist government who invented PFI deals to enable them to borrow money without putting it on the Government balance sheet – but the interest payable has now caught up with us). Would a new socialist Government simply default on the contracts or borrow even more money to get out of the PFI deals? Either way it looks a grim financial future for UK Plc.

The last Labour Government made a big mistake when they nationalised a small UK bank called Northern Rock – we just passed the year anniversary of that event. That proved disastrous when other banks such as Bradford & Bingley, RBS, HBOS, et al, who were dependent on short term money market lending needed liquidity. Nobody was keen to lend to UK institutions so British banks and the UK economy were some of the hardest hit worldwide by the events of 2008/9.

As for renationalising the railways, they may get more subsidies from the Government now than they did when they were last nationalised, but ridership has increased, new tracks are being laid, and services improved. The problem was surely the nature of the privatisation and the fact that all railways are horribly inefficient and an inflexible means of moving goods and people around. Old technology, beloved by users who do not have to face up to paying the real cost of the service.

So the policies of Mr Corbyn and his colleagues may be exhilarating for LabourParty supporters, but no I don’t want to go back to a future set in the 1960s. Been there, done that, and no thanks.

But if the Conservatives wish to win the next election, they certainly need to look at tackling employment law to bring it up to date for the gig economy, to tackle the problem of funding education and relieve students of the enormous debts they are now incurring, to deal with the problem of insufficient housing in the South-East (and associated over-population which is the cause) which is leading to demands for rent controls, and tackle the thorny question of funding the NHS. Yes we need some new ideas, not old policies recycled Mr Corbyn.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Interest Rates and the Gig Economy

You probably don’t need to be told that interest rates are at their lowest for several centuries, if not in recorded history. The fact that the Bank of England is making noises about possibly raising base rate could just be a way to try and rein back inflation (a higher base rate, or prospect of it, causes the pound to rise and that makes imports cheaper – and import costs have been one of the factors in inflation rising). But unemployment is also at its lowest level for 40 years which usually indicates a booming economy and the prospect of higher inflation to come.

Inflation is now at 2.9% measured by the C.P.I., or 3.9% based on R.P.I. which a lot of us like to use instead. Now to me the really astonishing item of news last week was that the large City of London Investment Trust managed to borrow £50 million at a fixed rate of 2.94% for 32 years (I do hold some of their shares). That’s must be one of the best deals ever surely, and shows how investment trusts have the advantage of being able to gear up by borrowing money – and why not when interest rates are so low?

In reality, the lender is not even getting a real positive rate of interest at current inflation rates, and is also betting that it won’t get any worse for the next 32 years. Astonishing, and just shows how the world economy is awash with cash.

Another couple of interesting items of news last week were that Deliveroo lost £129 million in 2016 according to accounts filed at Companies House, on revenue of £129 million. In other words, for every pound paid by customers, they lost a pound. It’s raised $472 million from investors to achieve this wonderful business model (source: FT).

Deliveroo use “self-employed” bike couriers to deliver restaurant meals. Another exponent of this “gig-economy” model is Uber who received the bad news last week that Transport for London were terminating their license to operate in London. More information on that in this blog post I wrote for the ABD: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/uber-kicked-out-of-london/ . In there I praised the merits of the service and suggested people sign the petition against it (which is rapidly heading for a million signatures).

But one reason that it is so low cost is because like Deliveroo, Uber loses money in a big way at present. To quote from one report on its financials, “Uber is cheap because the company is heavily subsidising each trip” where it was suggested that Uber’s losses as a percentage of revenue were 129% in the last quarter of 2016. Like Deliveroo, revenue is rising rapidly though.

Do we mind if these companies lose money hand over fist? If they are fool enough to do so in the race to dominate a new market why not let them. But the long term viability of both when there are obviously lots of competitors providing similar services does raise doubts about these businesses, even if London Mayor Sadiq Khan relents over Uber’s license.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Brexit, and Ryanair

The media continue to try and blow up stories out of all proportion. Lately it has been on the likely terms of a Brexit deal with the EU, and Boris Johnson’s claims about the £350 million per week paid to the EU at present.

The reality on the latter is that the Daily Telegraph article by Boris claimed we would “regain control” over £350 million paid to the EU (which was based on a Treasury paper on the full EU membership fee (£19.5 billion per annum, which I think everyone will agree is a lot of money). However, that’s not the net cost to the UK because we get a rebate on membership as negotiated by Mrs Thatcher which reduces it to £14.6 billion, plus we get a lot back in the form of subsidies and grants – for example from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A rough estimate is that we get back between £5 and £6 billion from those. So the net figure is more like £9 billion per annum, but that’s still a lot of money. For example, the NHS budget for this year is £124 billion, so you can see the impact that an extra £9 billion might have.

But Boris was accurate in the sense that we have little control over the £5 to £6 billion of grants and subsidies. The UK has long wanted to reform the CAP which is more designed to subsidise inefficient continental European farmers than keep food prices low in the UK. Subsidies of some kinds to some farmers might continue in the UK post Brexit, but in a different form and possibly lower. But only with Brexit will the UK regain control so we can manage these matters more rationally. What most “remainers” seem to ignore is that a lot of the Brexit voters voted to leave because of wanting to get out of the undemocratic EU where UK voters had no significant influence, we were a small fish in a big pond, and likely to be outvoted on any major issues. Mr Juncker’s recent speech made it clear that the EU was headed for a closer political and economic union which many UK voters have found abhorrent. Historically most UK voters supported joining the “common market”, but they never wanted to join a “United States of Europe” with EU laws and bureaucrats dominant and were misled by UK politicians who did. That certainly applied to the existing EU structure and calls for democratic reform have gone nowhere.

There was a very good article in the FT yesterday by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson (no relation) on Brexit where he points out that the Office of Budget Responsibility forecasts the cost of EU membership to fall from £12.6 billion in 2018/19 to zero in 2019/20. Nigel also said “Those who say that a good trade deal is in the best interests of the EU and the UK alike fail to understand what the EU is about. It is not about economics at all. It is a political enterprise, dedicated to the achievement of full political union”. He discounts the problem of “no trade deal” based on the ability to trade under WTO terms. James Dyson recently indicated he saw little problem with that also.

Should we pay to access the Common Market, in a “transition” phase or permanently? It obviously depends on what deal is put on the table, but the attitude of the EU Commission so far suggests it won’t be a good one. In my view the UK can prosper without close involvement with the EU and without paying anything other than contractually committed minimums as part of the exit process. The UK can prosper based on its own resources and the trade with other international partners than the EU, so if they don’t want tariff free access to the UK, then we can give up tariff free access to theirs. It might just stimulate UK manufacturing so we don’t have to rely on buying German cars, washing machines, refrigerators, et al.

Ryanair

One of the folks complaining about the possible impact of Brexit is Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair. He suggests flights from the UK to Europe may be halted unless a deal is done to cover flight access.

But Ryanair has been hit lately by problems with crew scheduling that have resulted in cancellation of many flights. The service to the affected passengers has also generated numerous complaints. It just looks like an operational cock-up, compounded by abysmal management responses thereafter to mollify customers.

Now I have a motto of never flying Ryanair after an event over 15 years ago. I was booked to fly on Ryanair out of Stansted but a hijacked plane was diverted to land there. The radio news said the airport was closed so I diverted to another airline via City airport to get to Dublin on time for a business meeting. Ryanair claimed Stansted was never closed (not true I believe) and refused to pay compensation.

Anyone who follows the news will know of repeated complaints from passengers about the behaviour of Ryanair. Being low cost surely does not justify the low quality of service. It’s the kind of company I would not just avoid flying with, but also investing in.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

First blog post

This blog is written by Roger W. Lawson and covers topical news and comment on investment (particularly stocks and shares), on corporate governance, on company management, on economics, on transport, on art, on events in London and on local and national politics. It will also cover anything else that I feel may be of general interest to my readers or where I have a burning desire to discuss a topic.

As some readers may know, I have been writing articles and blog posts on stock market investment for many years, more recently mainly for ShareSoc – an organisation for private investors. I will continue to do so as I support the objects of ShareSoc, therefore you may find similar blog posts on their web site as appear here.

This blog may cover a wider remit though in that I won’t shy away from controversial issues as much as a “responsible” national organisation has to do. In this case you are simply getting my personal opinions, but I will of course always try to get the facts straight to support any stance. If that offends some people then so be it. One cannot produce interesting and lively articles while pandering to the sensitivities of everyone in this world.

It will also cover some other areas of interest to me than stock market investment.

I hope you find it a good read.  Review what it says in the “About” section for more background information.

Roger Lawson