Frills, spills and panics on the dance floor of finance

News of John Sergeant’s resignation from Strictly Come Dancing hit the markets hard last night and this morning. In the US the Dow Jones fell by more than 400 points, closing at its lowest level since March 2003. This morning, markets in Asia followed suit.

It is hard to believe a dance competition could have such a dramatic impact on the value of stocks.

But, now it is time to let you into a secret. It appears that the Come Dancing hero’s shock departure wasn’t the only event in the news yesterday. No doubt traders in Japan were distressed over the development; no doubt traders in New York were up in arms over comments made by the competition’s judges; but it appears there were other, even more dramatic, events behind the latest financial panic.

You have probably got the message about deflation now. And if you are an avid reader of this newsletter, you probably saw it coming. But confirmation came in the form of the most dramatic data yet, this time from across the pond. US consumer prices fell faster than a tumbling dancer in October, dropping by a full percentage point. The annual headline figure for US inflation fell from 4.9 to 3.7 per cent. It seems certain the index tracking annual US inflation will fall some more in November, and may well go negative within weeks of that date when the victor of this year’s Come Dancing competition is chosen.

You can’t have it both ways of course. For months we have been told that it is not headline inflation that matters, rather it is underlying inflation with energy and food taken out. Well, even core prices fell in October, not by much it is true – they fell by 0.1 per cent – but, quite frankly, any fall in this index is a rare event indeed. It appears prices of vehicles fell by 0.7 per cent in the month, clothes by 1 per cent, while the cost of hotel rooms fell by a stunning 1.6 per cent.

For the organizers of Strictly Come Dancing, this news is mixed. Sure, it will be cheaper in terms of dollars to put their judges up in American hotels; sure, it will cost less to travel the country; and sure, the costumes may be a tad cheaper; but then since the pound has fallen even more sharply, the sterling cost will actually have risen.

Maybe, instead, they should consider buying a house, rather than renting a room in a hotel.

US housing starts reached their lowest level ever recorded in October. In all, the annual rate fell to just 791,000, from 820,000 in September. Capital Economics said: “The number of permits being issued fell to 708,000, suggesting that the slide in residential construction activity will continue over the coming months. At this rate activity will be down to zero soon.”

Fears are also growing over the fate of the big US car makers. And here the markets provided yet more evidence to demonstrate how illogical they are. As you know, a share price is supposed to reflect all future dividend flow from a specific company, with future dividends discounted to provide a net current value. One of the reasons given for yesterday’s fall relates to fears that the US government will not bail out the Detroit Three: GM, Ford and Chrysler. There is no doubt, if the three US car makers go under, the knock-on effect will be enormous. The short-term costs of the three companies going bust will be high indeed. Yet, there are good reasons to believe that in the long-term, corporate America will be better off if the companies go under. The vacuum which is left by the collapse of these companies will eventually be filled by new, dynamic businesses.

In the long-term, the collapse of the Detroit Three may be good, so why then are US and Asian shares, which are supposed to reflect long-term dividend flow, lower as a result of fears the US government may not rescue the three companies?

But here is the really worrying news. Both the X Factor and that celebrity programme in the jungle featuring famous and not so famous people eating live bugs, are due to come to an end soon. Just imagine the financial implications if one of the favourites is voted out early – what then?

According to research from Mintel, amongst wealthy Brits (those with at least £100k to invest) one in every four is planning to take a gamble and expand their investment portfolio in the very near future. This begs the question, of course, what are the three in four who are not planning to invest thinking. Maybe they are saying to themselves: “I am an investor, get me out of here.”

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Rate cutting Bank of E sends pre Pre-Budget warning

Things are not like they used to be. Take as an example, code breaking. Sixty years ago, cracking the Enigma code involved a massive military operation.

More recently, Alan Greenspan was magnificent at it. He once said: “If I’ve made myself clear, you must have misunderstood me.”

The European Central Bank was less subtle. It established a form of words, dropping a word here and there meant rates were either going up or down at the next meeting. Use of words like ‘accommodating’, could hint at future rate changes one or even two months ahead.

But the Bank of England didn’t bother with code when last it sat. It dropped one huge warning to the government – and its plans for a massive Keynesian push.

This is what the minutes of the latest meeting said on the matter: “The Government had already announced its intention to bring forward some planned spending commitments. Moreover, the changing composition of output would lead to a fall in effective tax rates from those assumed in the projections. Consequently, it would make sense for the Committee to reassess the required scale of monetary easing after the Chancellor’s Pre-Budget Report.”

Or, to put it another way, if the government spends too much, then future interest rate cuts will be smaller than they would otherwise have been.

The minutes also revealed the bank’s Monetary Policy Committee contemplated an unprecedented 2 per cent rate cut. It appears the factor which stayed its hand were fears that such a move would send the markets, especially the currency markets, into panic. Plus fears that the chancellor would go too far in his Pre-Budget.

So, it seems an odds-on cert that rates will fall again soon, and maybe by quite a bit. Whether rates will fall to 1 or even zero per cent does depend. There seems to be a real danger that the combination of massive government borrowing and falling interest rates could send sterling into a tailspin. This could make it impossible for the UK government to raise the money it needs to fund planned spending. This could in turn enforce hikes in the rate of interest.

For economic policy in the UK, this trade off between the need to kick start the economy and the danger of creating an unprecedented crash in sterling, will be the key factor underlying all major decisions.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Rubles fall down the drain faster than the rain in Spain

And from waltzing markets, to interest rates doing a tango, and ballroom government spending, it is now time to foxtrot further to the east.

Well, in one case, not very far to the east, more down a bit – towards Spain, where the latest set of GDP data was revealed yesterday.

But from there we need to look a lot further to the east, to the land of the bear, and the incredibly-shrinking Russian reserves.

Spanish GDP contracted in the third quarter. It fell by minus 0.2 per cent, from a 0.1 per cent rise in the previous quarter. To put this in context, in the final quarter of last year it expanded by 0.6 per cent.

Household spending fell by 1 per cent, investment by 1.9 per cent and imports contracted by 0.8 per cent.

The only real surprise is this. The crisis in Spain has been on the cards for a very long time. Certainly there have been articles here for 18 months or longer warning as much. Yet until very recently, forecasters were talking about a slowdown, the most pessimistic said growth would still be positive.

It just goes to show, forecasting is only any good when things don’t change much. Sure, forecasters can predict a slowdown, an easing in pace, but economic models just can’t begin to predict anything unusual. In other words, they are most unreliable in the areas where we need them the most.

As for Russia, that island of stability – as the country’s prime minister recently described it – money is leaving its foreign reserves faster than you can say Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Russia is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On one hand, a strong ruble is seen as vital for maintaining confidence in the Russian economy – hence Vlad’s comment about an island of stability.

But, in 1998 it made the mistake of trying to prop up the ruble and throwing foreign exchange at the problem until it was bankrupt.

Capital Economics has taken a look and concluded as follows: “If oil prices remain at $50pb and capital continues to flow out of the country apace, the ruble may need to fall by 50 per cent in order to balance Russia’s external position.”

And yet, says Capital Economics: “… despite the precipitous slide in the oil price, there is not yet a consensus amongst policymakers in favour of letting the currency fall at all.”

Russia’s problem really comes down to what economists call the Dutch disease, so named after oil exports pushed the Dutch guilder so high that other domestic export businesses in Holland suffered. Russia’s ruble is too strong for its indigenous manufacturers to be able to compete on the world stage. Its long-term stability requires a much cheaper currency.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

High Street sees pre-Christmas tumble

Analysts had been holding their breath this morning. They were waiting for the release of the latest data on retail sales and, sure enough, the ONS duly obliged.

At first glance, it looked rather like something of a damp squib. Until, that is, you take a closer look, and all of a sudden the data looked more akin to a giant squid, sitting in the comer of the living room.

During October, retail sales fell by 0.1 per cent. Analysts had been expecting a 0.9 per cent fall.

As for annual growth, High Street spending rose by 1.9 per cent in the year to September, from 1.7 per cent in the year to October. So, all in all then, not a bad set of statistics.

Until, that is, you observe the giant squid in the living room.

Sales volume for non-food stores fell by 1.1 per cent.

The truth is, though, there has never been a Christmas like this one. Today, Marks and Spencer is having a special one-day sale – unprecedented for this time of they year. Woolworths is up for sale: price tag – £1.

It seems that this Christmas, pressies will be thin on the ground – but the real clincher will be what happens in the New Year.

It is clear the UK’s retail scene is set to change. The falls we are seeing to date are small compared to what we will see. The UK had become over reliant on its High Street, and we are set to see a permanent adjustment.

But all those state of the art shopping centres across the land have one potential USP. Britain could yet become the shopping Mecca for Europe. If the High Street really wants to build itself a future, it needs to learn how to attract shoppers from across the seas.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

markets

markets

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

oil

Rates Close Change
Oil 48.7 -4.34
Gold 749.5 16.00
$ to £ 1.4792 -0.02
€ to £ 1.1823 -0.01
$ to € 1.251 0.00

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

ftse

Index Close Change
FTSE 100 3,874.99 -130.69
Dow 7,705.61 -291.67
NASDAQ 1,340.95 -45.47
Nilkkei 7,703.04 -570.18
Hang Seng 12,298.56 -517.24
CSI 300 1,932.43 -20.73
Sensex 300 8,451.01 -322.77
DAX 4,220.20 -133.89

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Face down – Cameron’s prudence versus Brown’s spending: who is right?

Imagine you feel rotten. Confined to bed, a friend pops around with this medicine. It is magnificent at dealing with the symptoms. Your temperature falls to normal, you feel as right as rain. You are not better of course, far from it, but you feel better. Then you do something stupid, you go skinny dipping in the middle of winter, or something. You know what will happen next. When the medicine masking your symptoms wears off, you will feel worse, a lot worse.

So what has that got to with the business and the economy? Answer: maybe quite a lot. It depends.

At last, daylight has appeared, real daylight, between the economic policies of the Tories and Labour. It’s a tag team contest, really. On one hand you have Brown and Darling, let’s call them the Red Devils. They have a secret weapon – Keynesian economics, and the policy of spend, spend. On the other side of the ring, you have the Blues Brothers. Cameron and Osborne – fresh-faced, but secretly wielding a sword called prudence.

Are you ready to rumble? Who is right?

It all depends on what you believe caused the economic crisis of 2008.

If you believe it is down to bankers, mortgage securitization, and the great US subprime error, then it seems the UK’s economic malaise is down to bad luck. The UK, it seems, has been struck by a perfect storm of misfortune. But there is a real danger that the damage caused by this storm will be long lasting. The recession could deepen and then a downward spiral could result. If people save more, because they are scared, businesses will find demand is inadequate for them to meet their overheads, businesses will go bust. Banks who have lent to these businesses will suffer more bad debts, so, in anticipation of this event, they cut back lending in advance. Individuals who have become used to living off their overdraft, and then lose their jobs, will find they can’t even afford to pay the charges on their overdraft. In anticipation of this, banks will reduce overdrafts, creating problems for individuals, even when they have a job, forcing them to cut back, forcing aggregate demand across the economy to fall.

In such circumstances there is only one thing for it. Spend before the downward spiral develops. Fund the banks so they can afford to carry on lending, give tax back to those who are most likely to spend it, and invest in large infrastructure projects which will result in the employment of people who have lost jobs in the construction sector.

Above all, get spending and borrowing back to 2007 levels.

If you believe the above analysis is right, then the Red Devils have hit the nail on the head. They will go down in history as the most successful tag team in peacetime politics.

But, there is another way of looking at it.

If you believe the fundamental problem is that savings have been too low for years, that consumer debt had been allowed to rise too high, that surging house prices gave an illusion of prosperity, which in turn encouraged an unsustainable boom, then it is possible the Red Devil approach will make things worse.

David Cameron likens it to taking out a new credit card, to pay off the debt on another card.

If that analysis is right, then a Keynesian boost will merely mask the symptoms.

There is one snag, though, with this plan hatched by the Blues Brothers. Where were their warnings 18 months ago? There were plenty of articles in the press, including here, warning that debt had risen too high, that house prices were too high, and that a nasty crash was inevitable, but Cameron and Osborne were silent.

Brown and Darling, however, are, if nothing else, consistent. They said the economy was in good shape, they said the UK was in a better position to withstand a recession than most other economies, and if that analysis is right, then so is their plan.

David Cameron’s plan represents a complete turn around in policy, analogous to the errors made by John McCain in September, which is when most political commentators say he lost the US election.

This, however, disguises an even deeper problem.

We like our political leaders to be consistent, firm, strong. If a political leader admits they made a mistake, then more often than not it’s curtains on their career. The reality should be different. All politicians get it wrong. No one predicted the severity of this economic crisis. We live in an uncertain world – and the people who are best adapted to lead are the ones who are willing to change. This is precisely the approach that is doomed to create electoral failure.

The fundamental truth is this: consumer spending reached a level in the UK which was just unaffordable. The economy has adapted so that it relies on this unsustainable level of spending. The economy has to be re-aligned. This can only be painful. A Keynesian boost will be good for the economy, but only if the money is spent in the right areas.

If the UK comes out of this recession with a new, improved transport infrastructure, and with massive renewable energy capacity, then we will be better off as a result.

Recessions are important. A farmer understands that winter is essential. It gives the land a chance to rest, and crops then re-grow with new vigour in the spring. Over-farming leads to desertification. If money is used to maintain the old way of doing things, then the UK will be weaker as a result.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Why the Net is more important than you think

There are of course two sectors of the UK’s retail industry that are thriving. There’s the cut price sector; stores that offer bargains are doing well. But there is another sector too – online retailers.

A few years ago we were told it wouldn’t be like this. Shopping is fun. It’s a social pursuit. The Net would only ever be a sideshow. But, bit by bit, that is changing.

With that in mind, consider these findings from a survey conducted by the RBS, in this case talking to mortgage intermediaries. The lessons of this survey are relevant to you, not just if you are in the mortgage business, but whichever line of work you are in.

The survey found that only six per cent of advisers felt the Internet would be a big threat to their business. Around six in ten said they felt there would still be room for mortgage advisers.

Apparently, people prefer to arrange their mortgages face to face.

There is an element of truth in the survey. Mortgage advisers will never go away completely. There will always be an element of face to face.

But the Internet’s effect on our daily lives has only just begun.

It has the opportunity to completely change the economy, and make it far, far more efficient. The Internet has probably helped keep prices down – by promoting unprecedented price competition, it has helped boost trade, as companies across the world find it easier to contact each other. Above all, though, and this is not widely understood, scientific research and technological innovation will be the biggest beneficiaries of the Internet, as researchers everywhere learn to share ideas.

As the Facebook generation become consumers, including consumers of mortgage products, the world will change some more. Whichever sector you work in, underestimate the long-term significance of the Internet at your peril.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Should the state play the bugle and save small businesses, Northern Rock’s mortgage holders and the Detroit Three?

Nick Clegg wants local councils to lend to business. Banks aren’t doing it, so government money should be lent directly, he says.

Shareholders in Northern Rock – errr, that’s us – are worried that the state-owned bank may account for 10 per cent of all property repossessions this year. Presumably, taxpayers – errr, that’s us – will have to pay to rehouse people who have had their properties repossessed. So why not use government money to keep people in their homes, and in the process stop a rush of new properties coming on to the market, pushing prices down even further?

Meanwhile, in the US of A, bosses at the Detroit Three, GM, Chrysler and Ford, have asked Congress for a $25bn bail out. “If banks can get government money, why can’t we?” they ask.

The liberal democrat leader wants to see Post Offices – remember them? – local authorities, or maybe even a new state-backed bank, to provide a flow of funding to businesses. The chancellor has earmarked £4bn, but the banks don’t seem to want to lend it.

This idea has much to commend it. Frankly, it would have been a good idea years ago. The big problem with banks lending to small entrepreneurial businesses is this: it doesn’t make sense. Most new businesses fail. The ones that succeed often succeed in spectacular fashion, providing jobs and tax receipts for the government. The model of lending to entrepreneurial businesses does not make sense. The money the lender makes on the loans that work will never compensate for the loans that go bad. That is why a truly entrepreneurial business finds it all but impossible to raise money from banks, and instead has to throw itself at the business angel market. In the UK, this market has never been sufficiently dynamic, or of sufficient scale to encourage real wealth creation, free enterprise. A government-backed scheme, if done correctly, makes sense.

Northern Rock’s mistake was those 125 per cent loans, which it calls “Together Mortgages.” When the bank first hit trouble we were told this lending practice was fine – the bank’s weakness was its reliance on wholesale funding. Now the bank is finding that the arrears rate on its Together Mortgages is more than twice the industry average.

Maybe the government should engage in some kind of rent-back scheme – take on the properties and rent them back to their former owners. Then, when house prices recover, it can sell them back.

The problem with that plan is that it presupposes house prices will bounce back. If you believe that house prices are only sustainable when the average house is selling for around three times average income, then there will be no bounce back. Furthermore, any such bounce back would be undesirable, anyway.

Negative equity can be tragic. It is inequitable if it means people can’t afford to accept promotion or a new job, because they would have to relocate and they can not afford to sell their property because it is worth less than their mortgage. It is just wrong if households find they can not pay their mortgage, but the option of downsizing is unavailable to them because they have negative equity.

The solution is for the provision of a kind of government-backed negative equity mortgage. Such mortgages should cover the difference between the value of a mortgage and say, 90 per cent of the value of the property it is secured against.  These mortgages would be available to people with negative equity and who want to move. The negative equity mortgage payments would be treated in much the same way as student loans – payments deducted at source.

As for the US and demands to save GM, Ford and Chrysler - this is a tough one. If they go bust, then the job losses that follow will be enormous. And yet there is more to the problems at these companies than a credit crunch related slowdown. They have all been in trouble for years – even during the economic boom. Money that is pumped into saving these companies, is money that is not available to invest in new entrepreneurial businesses.

Maybe the US needs more Nick Clegg, less Jesse Jackson.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit