Labour’s Plans For Confiscation of Shares and Rail System Renationalisation

Jeremy Corbyn made it clear in a speech last night that the rich will be under attack if Labour gets into power. John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, will present his plans today to give 10% of shares in all larger companies to employees over a period of years. The Daily Telegraph described it as a Marxist plot to control businesses while Carolyn Fairburn of the CBI attacked it as a “new tax that adds to the impression that Labour sees business as a bottomless pit of funding”. The proposal seems to be based on setting up a trust for employees into which the shares would be deposited and from where dividends would be paid to employees.

Comment: It will certainly dilute existing shareholders so readers of this blog might find they and the pension funds that invest in shares are proportionally poorer. Although it sets a bad principle, if the numbers being proposed are enacted it might not have a major impact on companies or investors. Enabling employees to have a financial interest in the profits of a company is quite a sensible idea in many ways. But it might simply encourage companies to take their business elsewhere. If they are registered in another country, how will the UK Government enforce such legislation?

Last week Chris Grayling, Transport Secretary, announced a review of the privatised rail system. That follows the recent problems with new timetables where the regulator concluded that “nobody took charge”. John McDonnell said that he could renationalise the railways within five years if Labour wins the next election – it’s already a manifesto commitment. Perhaps he thinks he can solve the railway’s problems by doing so but this writer suggests the problem is technology rather than management, although cost also comes into the equation.

The basic problem is that the railways are built on inflexible and expensive old technology. There has never been a “timetable” problem on the roads because there are no fixed timetables – folks just do their own thing and travel when they want to do so.

Consider the rail signalling system – an enormously expensive infrastructure to ensure trains don’t run into each other and to give signals to train drivers. We do of course have a similar system at junctions on roads – they are called traffic lights. But they operate automatically and are relatively cheap. Most are not even linked in a network as train signals are required to be.

Trains run on tracks so they are extremely vulnerable to breakdowns of trains and damage to tracks – even snow, ice or leaves on the line cause disruption – who ever heard of road vehicles being delayed by leaves? A minor problem on a train track, often to signals, can quickly cause the whole line or network to come to a halt. Failing traffic signals on roads typically cause only slight delays and vehicles can drive around any broken-down cars or lorries.

The cost of changes to a rail line are simply enormous, and the cost of building them also. For example, the latest estimate for HS2 – the line from London to Birmingham is more than £80 billion. The original M1 was completed in 1999 at a cost of £26 million. Even allowing for inflation, and some widening and upgrading since then the total cost is probably less than £1 billion.

Changes to railway lines can be enormously expensive. For example, the cost of rebuilding London Bridge station to accommodate more trains was about £1 billion. These astronomic figures simply do not arise when motorways are revised or new service stations constructed.

Why invest more in a railway network when roads are cheaper to build and maintain, and a lot more flexible in use? At present the railways have to be massively subsidised by the Government out of taxation – about £4 billion per annum according to Wikipedia, or about 7.5p per mile of every train journey you take according to the BBC. Meanwhile road transport more than pays for itself and contributes billions to general taxation in addition from taxes on vehicle users.

So here’s a suggestion: scrap using this old technology for transport and invest more in roads. Let the railways shrink in size to where they are justifiable, or let them disappear as trams did for similar reasons – inflexible and expensive in comparison with buses.

No need to renationalise them at great expense. Spend the money instead on building a decent road network which is certainly not what we have at present.

Do you think that railways are more environmentally friendly? Electric trains may be but with electric road vehicles now becoming commonplace, that justification will no longer apply in a few years’ time, if not already.

Just like some people love old transport modes – just think canals and steam trains – the attachment to old technology in transport is simply irrational as well as being very expensive. Road vehicles take you from door-to-door at lower cost, with no “changing trains” or waiting for the next one to arrive. No disruption caused by striking guards or drivers as London commuters have seen so frequently.

In summary building and managing a road network is cheaper and simpler. It just needs a change of mindset to see the advantages of road over rail. But John McDonnell wants to take us back to 1948 when the railways were last nationalised. Better to invest in the roads than the railways.

It has been suggested that John McDonnell is a Marxist but at times he has denied it. Those not aware of the impact of Marxism on political thought would do well to read a book I recently perused which covered the impact of the Bolsheviks in post-revolutionary Russia circa 1919. In Tashkent they nationalised all pianos as owning a piano was considered “bourgeois”. They were confiscated and given to schools. One man who had his piano nationalised lost his temper and broke up the piano with an axe. He was taken to goal and then shot (from the book Mission to Tashkent by Col. F.M. Bailey).

Sometimes history can be very revealing. The same mentality that wishes to spend money on public transport such as railways as opposed to private transport systems, or renationalising the utility companies such as National Grid which is also on the agenda, shows the same defects.

The above might be controversial, but I have not even mentioned Brexit yet. Will the Labour Party support another referendum as some hope and Corbyn is still hedging his bets over? I hope not because I think the electorate is mightily fed up with the subject. In politics, as in business, you should take decisions and then move on. Going back and refighting old battles is not the way to succeed. All we should be debating is the form of Britain’s relationship with the EU after Brexit.

Roger Lawson

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.

GB Group, Social Media, Rightmove and Alliance Trust

Yesterday I attended the Annual General Meeting of GB Group (GBG) in Chester. An absolutely horrendous road journey both there and back mainly due to road works as far as I can tell. But my satnav took me on the M25, M11, A14, M6, M54 and numerous minor roads on the way there from south-east London, and the M6, A50, M1, A14, M11, M25 and other minor roads on the way back. A typical example of how the UK road network is not fit for purpose while we spend £56 billion on HS2 (that’s the Government’s estimate – it could be a lot more) to transport a few wealthy business people and politicians from London to Birmingham.

It’s also a good reason for introducing on-line AGMs, hybrid ones preferably, as someone just posted on the ShareSoc blog. Total journey time to get to/from Chester: 10 hours, meeting duration: one hour.

GB Group is an AIM-listed supplier of identity verification solutions. There has been a rapidly growing demand for quick, on-line ID verification by all kinds of financial institutions as well as by investigatory bodies such as the police. GB have exploited this demand well by both organic growth and acquisitions. Revenue up 37% last year, and adjusted profits up 55%.

There were half a dozen ordinary shareholders at the meeting and I’ll just cover some of the questions and points of note. The announcement by the company in the morning did not cover current trading but just some positive items of news. It mentioned a change in “branding strategy” to talk about “solutions” rather than “products” with a new single, focused brand of “Loqate” for their location intelligence businesses. I asked the Chairman, David Rasche, whether this means they will rename the company also (I never have liked the “GB Group” name because it is very unmemorable and not therefore a good brand)? But he said not in the short term. Same answer as given the last time I asked this question two or three years back. Regret I do not like poor names for companies as investors can easily forget who they are. But it does not necessarily seem to have an impact on share performance.

Another shareholder asked whether new Data Protection regulations would help or hinder the company. The answer was in principle it helps. The CEO said it was neutral in the short term but positive longer term.

I also asked where the future growth of the business would come from. The answer was from geographic expansion with Asia being a strong opportunity for the Loqate sector, and from acquisitions. With cash on the balance sheet rising they clearly could afford some acquisitions. They have very good penetration in some sectors (e.g. over 50% of id verification in the UK gaming sector) but lower in many others so there is room for organic growth.

When it came to the votes on resolutions (by a show of hands) I voted against the Remuneration Report and a new “Performance Share Plan”. The latter enables grants of options over 100% of employees’ salary each year, subject to performance conditions which are primarily eps based. It transpired that only 84% of shareholders voted FOR the Remuneration Report and even less for the Share Plan. Why was that I asked? It transpired that this was because ISS recommended opposition mainly because more than 10% of the company’s share capital is now under option to staff which breaches guidelines. I told the Chairman later that I voted against simply because I considered the pay scheme too complex and too generous. He justified it on the basis of the growth in the company and the need to match market levels. Difficult for shareholders to complain too much given the performance of the company over recent years (it’s one of my “ten baggers”).

After the AGM we had a demonstration of some of their software and how it can confirm postal and email addresses, phone number and other information on individuals and who they are connected to. I had seen this before but this time they even showed how they can map a person’s location by the social media tweets they post, e.g. on Facebook, Twitter and lots of others. That’s a good reminder if you have not already reviewed and tightened up your security settings in Facebook et al that you should do that pronto. GB Group obviously have limitations on who they supply information to, and they help to ensure that you are not going to be subject to “impersonation” fraud, but social media seem to have no limits on personal information and privacy.

Hence of course the recent scandal about Facebook’s activity which helped to wipe off $120 billion in its market cap yesterday as sales growth slowed. Most peculiar is the number of advertisements that Facebook has been running in the national press pointing out their failings and how they are going to reform. It included one that spelled out the enormous number of fake accounts it was removing – 583 million in the 1st quarter apparently. More to the point perhaps why did they allow such fake accounts to start with? Why don’t they use a service like GB Group provides to stop people from even registering such accounts?

I have long advocated that people should only use their genuine name on internet posts and have adhered to that principle for some years (apart from where I am posting on behalf of an organisation). I do not see why anyone should be allowed to send anonymous communications or create accounts in fictitious names. If you are not willing to be attributed as the author of something, you should not be allowed to use a false name.

A possible cause of the problems at Facebook is the dominance of CEO Mark Zuckerberg who is both Chairman and Chief Executive which is never a good idea. In addition he has majority voting power in the shares because of the dual class share structure. This is surely bad corporate governance and might have contributed to their lax approach to privacy as it’s likely to be difficult to argue policy with him.

On the subject of privacy, interesting to note that Huawei, a Chinese supplier of IT infrastructure, has been classified as a national security risk in a recent report (reference the National Cyber Security Centre). As I use a Huawei smartwatch does that mean there is a risk of people reading my personal emails, tweets and text message and breaching my privacy? Perhaps one can get too paranoid about security.

Rightmove Plc (RMV) is another company in which I hold shares. They announced interim results this morning which were unsurprising, and also a 10 for one share split. The share price is currently about 4900p (i.e. £49). They are calling a general meeting to approve that. I will vote against as I never see any point in rebasing a share price. It only fools the ignorant but at some cost to the company, and confusion among investors.

Alliance Trust (ATST) also announced interim results yesterday (I still hold a few shares after the bust-up there a couple of years ago). One interesting point in the announcement was the mention of “expressions of interest” in Alliance Trust Savings – their investment platform. The strategic advantage of having an investment trust own a savings platform was never really clear now that the platform market is so diverse so disposal was always likely to be considered. They claim an “improvement in operational performance” for the division but whether they will be able to recoup the current book value of the division seems questionable. Might have to “bite the bullet” on this one, surely better sooner than later.

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.

Good Growth and Why the London Plan is Strategically Flawed

NHS in crisis (queues in A&E, operations postponed and delays getting to see your GP), road network suffering from worse congestion, overcrowded trains and underground in London, air pollution still a problem, not enough schools to accommodate growing numbers of children and simply not enough houses to meet the demand for homes. These are simply symptoms of too many people and not enough infrastructure.

For those concerned about the future of one of the major financial capitals of the world, namely, London, here’s an editorial I wrote for the Alliance of British Drivers on the subject of the “London Plan” – on which there is a recently launched public consultation:

The population of the UK has been growing rapidly and particularly in London and the South-East. The latest figures from TfL show that the number of trips by London residents grew by 1.3% in 2016, up by 19.7% from the year 2000. The population of London grew by 21.4% in that period.

Forecasts for the future are for it to grow from the level of 8.8 million people in 2016 to 10.8 million in 2041 according to the Mayor’s London Plan, i.e. another 22%.

More people means more housing demand, more businesses in which they can work, more shops (or more internet shopping deliveries) to supply them, more transport to move them around and more demand on local authorities to supply services to them.

In addition more people means more air pollution – it’s not just transport that generates air pollution and even if every vehicle in London was a zero emission one we would still have major emissions from office and domestic heating, from construction activities, and from many other sources.

The London Plan and Mayor Sadiq Khan talk about “good growth” but unfortunately the exact opposite is likely to be the case. It will be “bad” growth as the infrastructure fails to keep up with population growth even if we could afford to build it.

In London we have not kept up with the pace of population growth for many years and the future will surely be no different.

London residents have suffered from the problems of past policies which condoned if not actually promoted the growth of London’s population. Indeed Mayor Khan insists London should remain “open” which no doubt means in other language that he is opposed to halting immigration – for example he opposes Brexit and any restrictions on EU residents moving to London which has been one source of growth in the population in recent years.

There are of course several policies that wise politicians might adopt to tackle these problems. Restrictions on immigration and the promotion of birth control are two of them that would limit population growth. China is a great example of how a public policy to discourage children has resulted in dynamic economic growth whereas previously China suffered from population growth that outpaced the provision of resources to support them – result: abject poverty for much of the population; that is now receding into history.

The other answer is to redistribute the population to less crowded parts of the country. It is easier and cheaper to build new infrastructure and homes in less populous parts of the country than London. Back in the 1940s and 1950s there was a national policy to encourage businesses and people to move out of London into “New Towns” such as Bracknell, Basildon, Harlow, Stevenage, Milton Keynes and even further afield.

Government departments that were based in central London were moved to places such as Cardiff or the North of England. The population of London fell as a result.

One way to solve the problems of traffic congestion and demand for housing in London would be to encourage redistribution. This could be encouraged by suitable planning policies, but there is nothing in the proposed London Plan to support such measures. In the past, businesses and people were only too happy to move to a better environment. Businesses got low cost factories and offices. People got new, better quality homes and there were well planned schools and medical facilities.

Despite the attitude of many non-residents to the New Towns, most of those who actually live in them thought they were a massive improvement and continue to do so. It just requires political leadership and wise financial policies to encourage such change.

These are towns with few traffic congestion or air pollution problems even though some of them are now the size of cities – for example Milton Keynes now has a population of 230,000.

It is worth pointing out that past policies for New Towns and redistribution of London’s population were supported by both Labour and Conservative Governments. But we have more recently had left-wing Mayors in London (Ken Livingstone and Sadiq Khan) who adopted policies that seemed to encourage the growth in the population of London for their own political purposes, thus ignoring the results of their own policies on the living standards of Londoners. So we get lots of young people living in poor quality flats, unable to buy a home while social housing provision cannot cope with the demand.

The Mayor’s London Plan is an example of how not to respond wisely to the forecast growth in the population of London. His only solution to the inadequate road network and inadequate capacity on the London Underground or surface rail is to encourage people to walk, cycle or catch a bus. But usage of buses has been declining as they get delayed by traffic congestion and provide a very poor quality experience for the users.

The London Plan should tackle this issue of inappropriate population growth. The rapid population growth that is forecast is bound to be “Bad Growth”, not “Good Growth” as the London Plan suggests. Population growth and its control should underpin every policy that needs to be adopted in the spatial development strategy of London.

For more background on the London Plan, see: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/london-plan-abd-submits-comments/

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.

London Plan Published

I mainly comment on financial matters, but if you live or work in London you should pay attention to the “London Plan” that Mayor Sadiq Khan has recently published. Indeed if you live in other large conurbations you might wish to review it also because the policies he is promoting might spread elsewhere.

What’s the London Plan? It’s a document that sets the “spatial development” strategy for London over the next few years and has legal implications for planning developments, housing construction, transport infrastructure, and many other aspects of our lives.

The Mayor makes it plain that London needs to cope with the rapidly expanding population and business activity. The population of London might reach 10.5 million by 2041 he says (currently 8.8 million). That means a lot more houses have to be built (66,000 per annum he says) and support for more workplaces.

In addition it has major implications for transport infrastructure while at the same time he wants to clean up London’s air. He wants to make London a “zero carbon” city by 2050, although no doubt he will be long gone by then. As part of this he aims to reduce “car dependency” (an emotive and inaccurate phrase disparaging people who have made a rational or personal choice about how they travel when you don’t see this said about those who rely on cycles for their daily travel needs).

Why has the population of London grown so rapidly in recent years and continues to do so? Page 12 of the Plan explains why. It says 40 per cent of Londoners were born outside the UK, and the city is now home to 1 million EU citizens, no doubt attracted by the vibrant London economy. This has put a major strain on housing, transport, social services and other infrastructure (incidentally an unbelievable 1.2 million Londoners are apparently “disabled”).

This state of affairs has come about because of national policies on immigration with no effective policies to distribute that more widely across the country compounded no doubt by a desire by some politicians to improve their chances of being elected.

Specifically looking at transport, the Mayor’s target is for 80% of all journeys to be made by walking, cycling and public transport (that of course includes the 14% of Londoners who are disabled!). It’s currently 64%. This is going to mean an aggressive set of policies to reduce car use – hence the campaign against the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which supports the London Plan run by the Alliance of British Drivers – see http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm

The Mayor highlights the health inequalities in London, with deprived areas of London having reduced life expectancies (as much as 15 years for men and 19 years for women) surely an astonishing statistic. What is the reason for this? Poor housing conditions are certainly one, but lack of daily activity is allegedly another so the Mayor wants us all to be walking and cycling.

The Mayor does have plans to improve public transport including proposals for Crossrail 2 and extension of the Bakerloo line but these proposals will do relatively little to soak up the increased demand, and with no proposals of significance to improve the road network, hence no doubt the need to encourage us all to walk or cycle.

The Mayor’s plans to support the need for more housing include targets for every London borough (for example over 2,000 new homes every year in Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Greenwich, Hounslow, Newham, Southwark, and Tower Hamlets). This includes high concentration developments in locations with good public transport access levels (PTALs), particularly inner London boroughs. Outer London boroughs might see a relaxation of planning regulations to allow more “in-fill” developments including building on back gardens as the Conservatives promptly complained about. There will be more encouragement for smaller builders, more efficient building techniques and “proactive” intervention in London’s land market (more “compulsory purchase” perhaps).

One aspect of transport infrastructure that the London Plan covers is that of parking provision for new housing, office or shop developments. It wants most developments to be “car free” (i.e. no parking provision), particularly those with high PTAL levels. The details of what this means in practice are not clear, but it looks like the intention is to reduce parking provision substantially, thus resulting in more on-street parking and obstruction.

The Mayor concludes his near 500-page tome on the subject of the “Funding Gap”. By this he means the gap between the public sector funding required to support London’s growth (and his plans) and the money currently committed. In other words, he wants more money, including a bigger share of taxation collected from Londoners. For example, he repeats his call for control of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) which any right-thinking person should surely oppose. Yes the Mayor wants more money and more power. Unfortunately the establishment of directly elected Mayors such as Mr Khan has resulted in empire building of the worst kind. They are effectively dictators within their realms with no effective democratic constraints on their policies and negligible public accountability.

In summary, it is not clear that the building of lots of new homes (which of course will emit more pollutants, particularly during constructions, more than offsetting any reduction from restraining car use), of a fairly low standard in dense conurbations, is going to improve the quality of life for Londoners. It is undoubtedly the case that more new homes are needed in London but building new homes without complementary improvements to the transport infrastructure, which has consistently lagged behind the growth in London’s population, does not make much sense.

As is already seen in the statistics, older London residents are moving out and being replaced by immigrants. Some readers might wish to consider doing the same given the outlook for the quality of life in London. Simply reacting to the population growth in London without trying to constrain it, or divert it elsewhere, is surely a mistake.

You can submit your comments on the London Plan to the public consultation by going here: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/comment-draft-london-plan . Please be sure to do so. 

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.

Industrial Strategy – Is It More Than a PR Document?

Yesterday the Government published their “Industrial Strategy” – subtitled “Building a Britain fit for the future”. This is a “White Paper” that lays out how the Government plans to tackle the issues identified in a previous “Green Paper”. Does it have any relevance to investors views of the prospects for UK companies and the economy as a whole? I will try to answer that question later.

It certainly reads positively with glowing comments on the history of innovation in the UK, the great business environment, record levels of employment, vibrant culture, best universities in the world…….I could go on but you can read the whole 255 page document if you want more of the same.

But there are four “grand challenges” it focuses upon as key themes in improving our competitiveness and productivity:

  • Artificial intelligence and big data.
  • Clean growth.
  • The future of mobility.
  • Meeting the needs of an ageing population.

These will be supported by investment via an “Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund” (Government funding but matched by commercial investment), plus increasing R&D tax credits and putting more money into R&D investment. Education in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) will be enhanced with the establishment of a technical education system and a National Retraining Scheme. This is surely all sound (speaking as an engineer by education) because it is surely clear that poor productivity in the UK is the result of poor education and skills compounded by cultural biases against technology.

There is a big emphasis on improving productivity in this document which is definitely to be applauded. We cannot grow the economy by simply opening more cafés and gastro pubs.

As regards infrastructure there is money to support 5G and fibre optic networks, and support for electric vehicles. In addition the Government expects self-driving cars to be on our roads by 2021 – that’s only four years away. I am sceptical of what might happen when my top of the range SATNAV (not that inbuilt in the car which is hopeless) managed to get me lost in London only yesterday. As John Thornhill said in an interesting article in the FT today that “technology promises to free us from the human touch that caused millions of deaths [on the roads worldwide], but then quoted one tech executive as saying “the assumption that you can go from 1m road deaths to zero is very naive”.

There is also a commitment to “transform construction techniques” where old fashioned methods of house building, which are hopelessly labour intensive, remain in use. In another sector they will improve teaching of computer science and invest £20m in a new “Institute of Coding”, presumably to teach computer programming. I have to advise them as a former programmer that coding is an inefficient way of developing applications and teaching folks how to do it rather than implement systems in other ways is a retrograde step. This is surely a case of the Government fighting the new economic wars with old tactics.

Likewise a commitment to invest in AI, when it’s been around for many years but has yet to revolutionise the world, could be seen as unreal when it is unclear how that will have a big impact. AI is a myriad of technologies that might have impacts in many cumulative minor ways, but it’s the detail that matters.

In many ways this document is big on vision, but short on specifics (other than the few things I have mentioned above). It will take consistent follow through to make a concrete success of these policies – not something our existing political system is best designed to achieve.

So my conclusion is that it is a valiant attempt to guide the UK economy in the right future direction. Whether it will have a major impact or success remains to be seen. It may have little impact on the decisions by UK companies, who are always wary of Government hand-outs or policy changes.

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.

Budget Feedback, the Patient Capital Review and Productivity

My last post was on the Chancellors Budget which was written quickly but seems to have covered most of the important points. Perhaps one significant item missed was the additional liability of foreign investors for capital gains tax on property sales, although institutional investors may be exempt. This might have some impact but as the details are not yet clear, it remains to be seen what.

Otherwise the media feedback on the budget was generally positive although there was a big emphasis on the poor economic forecast for growth that the Chancellor announced. The OBR has substantially reduced growth forecasts which is one reason why debt will not be falling as quickly as previously indicated and future tax revenues will likewise be lower. Part of the problem is a failure to improve productivity. This also means that average wages in real terms may not grow as expected.

Why did I not comment on this? Because firstly economic forecasts (the OBR or anyone else’s) are notoriously unreliable, and secondly it makes little difference to most UK investors. It might suggest it would be wiser to invest more in overseas companies than UK ones, but in reality many UK companies have major revenues and profits from abroad. In any case, a lot of investors have already hedged their portfolios against the possible damage of a “hard Brexit” by adjusting their portfolios somewhat.

My experience is that investing based on country economic forecasts is very questionable. Good companies do well irrespective of the state of the general economy.

Patient Capital Review

On Budget day the Government (HM Treasury) also published their consultation response to the “Patient Capital Review” – or “Financing Growth in Innovative Firms” as it is officially called. You can find it on the internet. This review was aimed to review incentives to invest in early stage companies with a view to promoting more investment in such companies as part of the attempt to improve productivity in the UK economy. It potentially had significant impacts for investors – for example on the EIS and VCT tax reliefs. What follows is an attempt to bring out the key points:

The review considered not just the tax incentives, and whether they were effective, but whether more direct investment (supported directly or indirectly by the Government) should be undertaken. They got more than 200 written responses to the original consultation on this subject (see mine here: http://www.roliscon.com/Roliscon-Response-to-Financing-Growth-in-Innovative-Firms.pdf ), plus some on-line responses and they also used a panel of industry experts.

Although they have not published all the responses or broken them down in detail, one gets the impression that most respondents considered that the VCT/EIS regime was generally effective in stimulating investment in early stage companies and that there were few abuses. But the Treasury had expressed concern about some of the investments made in EIS/VCT companies which were often focussed more on “asset preservation” than in funding new growing businesses. So the rules are being tightened in that regard – see below.

A personal note: having invested in two EIS schemes that promoted country pubs the asset preservation capability might have made for a good sales pitch by the promoters but they subsequently turned out to be very poor investments even after the generous EIS tax reliefs. One is being wound up with the assets being sold for much less than purchased while the other one only made any money after it turned into a bailiff business subsequent to a shareholder revolt. The Government’s policy of ensuring a focus on “riskier” investments might actually be good for the investors as well as the economy! It will avoid inexperienced investors getting sucked into dubious investments by sharp promoters who can make even lemons sound attractive because of the generous tax reliefs.

On the support for new investment front, the Government is taking these steps:

  • Establishing a new £2.5 billion Investment Fund incubated in the British Business Bank with the intention to float or sell once it has established a sufficient track record. By co-investing with the private sector, a total of £7.5 billion of investment will be supported.
  • Significantly expanding the support that innovative knowledge-intensive companies can receive through the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) while introducing a test to reduce the scope for and redirect low-risk investment, together unlocking over £7 billion of new investment in high-growth firms through EIS and VCTs.
  • Investing in a series of private sector fund of funds of scale. The British Business Bank will seed the first wave of investment with up to £500m, unlocking double its investment in private capital. Up to three waves will be launched, attracting a total of up to a total of £4 billion of investment.
  • Backing first-time and emerging fund managers through the British Business Bank’s established Enterprise Capital Fund programme, supporting at least £1.5 billion of new investment.
  • Backing overseas investment in UK venture capital through the Department for International Trade, expected to drive £1 billion of investment.
  • Launching a National Security Strategic Investment Fund of up to £85m to invest in advanced technologies that contribute to our national security mission.

In addition the Pensions Regulator will clarify guidance on inclusion of venture capital, infrastructure and other illiquid assets in portfolios and HM Treasury will encourage defined contribution pension savers to invest in such assets.

Entrepreneur’s Relief rules will be changed to reduce the disincentive to accept more outside investment, and the Government will also look at a guarantee programme modelled on the US “Small Business Investment Company”.

They will also work with the Intellectual Property Office on overcoming the barriers to high growth in the creative and digital sector. What this implies is not clear. Does that mean they are suggesting introducing software patents perhaps?

Several gaps in the investment market for early stage or follow-on funding were identified but one telling comment from the expert panel was this: “…the UK venture capital market has historically delivered poor returns; this results in less capital being attracted to the asset class, which in turn results in less talent being attracted to the patient capital sector; this then depresses returns, completing the circle”. But they did suggest this could be fixed.

There apparently were many comments on the importance of the EIS/SEIS schemes for funding innovative businesses – for example: “EIS and SEIS incentives have been particularly effective at stimulating investment and are extremely valuable to bioscience investors”. But I suspect that has been of more benefit to companies raising capital than it has been in terms of achieving long-term positive returns for investors. It is a pity not more evidence was provided on that.

The Treasury response is to double the annual investment limit to £2 million for EIS investors, so long as any amount over £1 million is invested in knowledge-intensive companies. Also the annual investment limit for knowledge-intensive firms will be doubled from £5 million to £10 million for EIS and VCT companies, and a new fund structure for such firms will be consulted upon. There will also be more flexibility on how the “age limit” is applied for companies applying. Question: what is a knowledge-intensive company? The answer is not given in the Treasury’s response.

A “principles-based” test will be introduced for all tax-advantaged venture capital schemes. This will ensure that the schemes are focussed “towards investment in companies seeking investment for long-term growth and development”. Tax motivated investments where the tax relief provides most of the returns to investors will be ruled out in future. There must be “a risk to capital” for firms to qualify. Detailed guidance will be published on this and there are some examples given in the response document, although it is far from clear from those what the rules might be. Comment: as this is going to be “principle-based” rather than based on specific rules it looks like a case of the Treasury saying “we can’t say what is objectionable now but we will know when we see it”. This might create a lot of uncertainty among VCT and EIS fund managers and company advisors.

The rules for VCT investments will also be tightened up with the following changes:

  • from 6 April 2018 certain historic rules that provide more favourable conditions for some VCTs (“grandfathered” provisions) will be removed
  • from 6 April 2018, VCTs will be required to invest at least 30% of funds raised in qualifying holdings within 12 months after the end of the accounting period
  • from Royal Assent of the Finance Bill, a new-anti abuse rule will be introduced to prevent loans being used to preserve and return equity capital to investors. Loans will be have to be unsecured and will be assessed on a principled basis. Safe harbour rules will provide certainty to VCTs using debt investments that return no more than 10% on average over a five year period
  • with effect on or after 6 April 2019 the percentage of funds VCTs must hold in qualifying holdings will increase to 80% from 70%
  • with effect on or after 6 April 2019 the period VCTs have to reinvest gains will be doubled from 6 months to 12 months

Comment: these changes would not seem to cause great difficulties for VCT managers and should not affect the returns to investors. Some of the changes might be helpful. The feedback from VCT managers is awaited.

But the income and capital gains tax reliefs for investors are basically unchanged, as is Business Property Relief on “unlisted” companies such as AIM stocks which were both mooted as being under consideration. As I wrote in my previous blog post on the budget, at least the Chancellor and the Treasury seem to have minimised the changes which is always helpful for investors. Being unable to plan many years ahead because of taxation rules and levels continually changing has been a major problem for investors. So on that score alone, the budget is to be welcomed.

As regards Entrepreneurs’ Relief, the government is concerned that the qualifying rules of Entrepreneurs’ Relief should encourage long-term business growth. The rules will therefore be changed to ensure that entrepreneurs are not discouraged from seeking external investment through the dilution of their shareholding. This will take the form of allowing individuals to elect to be treated as disposing of and reacquiring their shares at the then market-value. The government will consult on the technical detail. Comment: this seems to be yet another complication to taxation rules which is unfortunate.

Productivity

These changes to the tax incentivised schemes, and the Government investment in funds, may assist to improve the productivity of the UK population by focussing on high growth technology businesses. One cannot improve productivity by employing more coffee bar baristas, and such jobs are always likely to remain low paid. The budget change to increase the National Living Wage (the Minimum Wage) from next April will also promote improvement in productivity as it will make employers consider investment in automation rather than simply employing more staff.

There is also investment in infrastructure committed to in the budget, which might assist. Is it not the case that productivity is reduced because of the distances and time wasted in commuting in the South-East of England? The transport network (road or rail) is truly abysmal in the UK and has been getting worse. This means that folks are tired before they even get into work. The encouragement of commuting by cycle also surely results in tired and unproductive staff. It might be fashionable, and good for their health in the long term, but is it good for the economy? Unfortunately the housing market has been made more inflexible in recent years in some respects so people cannot move nearer to their workplace. Stamp duty increases have deterred moving to reduce travel costs, and higher house prices in some areas have not helped. For example, this writer recently met someone who lives in Southampton when his employer was based in Oxford – he could not afford to move. The reduction in stamp duty for first-time buyers in the Budget is not going to make a big difference to these problems.

So overall the Budget changes are more “nudges” in the right direction to improve the economy, while not being revolutionary. The Government’s tax base is not undermined and investors tax planning not significantly affected, so Philip Hammond may find he is in the job longer than expected after all.

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.

A Quick Guide to New Issues, SMRs, Car Market and Brexit

In today’s Financial Times (11/11/2017) Neil Collins gave a quick guide to new issues which is worth repeating. This is what he said: “Do not buy into an initial public offering if most of the capital raised is going out of the business, or if it replaces existing debt (because the capital has already left). Do not buy if private equity is selling. Do not believe any forward-looking statements, because if the prospects really were that good, the vendors would wait and get a higher price. Do not buy any share that has been listed for less than a year. You will miss some bargains but you will avoid many more disappointments. Leave it to the professionals to lose other people’s money.”

Those are wise words indeed. He also made some ascerbic comments on small nuclear power stations which he says have been rebranded as “small modular reactors” (SMRs) to make them less scary. Rolls-Royce, who have produced such reactors for submarines, have touted them as a potential future business growth area for several years, but the FT’s in-depth review of the subject last week suggested that they are not likely to be put into production any time soon. Meanwhile the share price of Rolls-Royce is still below where it was in 2014.

Neil Collins also commented on the car market. You probably don’t need to be told that new car sales have slumped. The share prices of car dealers are cheap as chips and even my shares in Auto Trader are down substantially this year. Indeed one could apply Neil’s comments about IPOs to the company although it has taken a couple of years to reveal that the debt when listed is handicapping the company now. The car market is inherently cyclical which is one reason why car dealers are normally not valued highly, and they also show low barriers to entry with the car manufacturers controlling the market to a large extent and limiting the profits that dealers make. But Auto Trader is similar to Rightmove in the property market. High margins, dominant market position and a business with great network effects with the result that competitors find it difficult to muscle in on their market. I think I’ll stick with it for a while yet.

I am not convinced that we have reached “peak car” as some have suggested. There seem to be more cars on the road than ever although traffic volumes have slowed in London where most such commentators live. But that is as much about political policies that have limited road space and caused congestion, mostly irrational, than car buyers desires. Another good analysis in the FT recently was about how “green” various car types actually are. On total life emissions, some smaller petrol/diesel vehicles can beat “all-electric” cars. How is that? Because the manufacture and decommissioning of electric vehicles generate large emissions, and producing the electricity for them often does also.

With all these plugs I just gave for the FT, it is unfortunate that it coninues to publish such tosh about Brexit. Most of their writers predict the financial outcome will be calamitous. Whether that will be the outcome or not, I don’t have the space to provide a full analysis here, but most people who voted for Brexit did not consider the financial issue as conclusive. Consider an American colonialist in the year 1775, before their declaration of independance. No doubt with an economy very reliant on trade with Great Britain many people would have counselled against leaving the protection of their parent country. Did that deter them? No because they valued freedom more highly. They wanted control over their own affairs including that over taxes, and not to be ruled by a remote and undemocratic regime where they had minimal representation. That is the analogy that all the remainers should think about.

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.