UK News

from The Great Debate UK:

Fears of UK hung parliament may be overstated

-- The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own --

Fears of a hung parliament following the UK's general election may be overstated. With Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Britain's third largest party, performing well in the first prime ministerial debate, sterling has received a mild knock. Investors do not like the uncertainty that goes with a hung parliament. While many European countries are used to coalition government, the UK is traditionally a two-party system - with government swinging between Labour and the Conservatives.

Added to this uncertainty is the fact that none of the three parties has come up with a credible plan for cutting the government's deficit, which stands at 12 percent of GDP. One fear is that valuable months could be lost in horse-trading over forming the next government. Another is that a minority government could embark on a populist, but expensive, programme to prepare the ground for a second election later this year.

The hung parliament scenario is really two sub-scenarios. In the first, the party with the largest number of seats would govern on its own. This is probably what would happen if the Tories were the largest party. Such a government might well be unstable.

The second sub-scenario is a majority formed through a coalition with the LibDems. This is more likely if Labour emerges as the largest party. That's because it has offered to change the system for electing MPs - something the LibDems and their predecessor parties have wanted for decades. Indeed, during Thursday's debate, Labour's Gordon Brown several times dangled this olive branch.

A formal "Lib-Lab" pact would still need to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. But arguably this would be easier with a coalition that had been supported by over 50 percent of the electorate. What's more, if it did not have overall power, Labour would have a ready-made excuse for abandoning pledges made in its manifesto, which would otherwise tie its hands in confronting the deficit.

If there is a hung parliament, it will be better to hang together than hang separately.

from MacroScope:

Britain heading for rude awakening?

There is a divisive election ahead for Britain, the threat of a ratings downgrade on its sovereign debt and a deficit that has ballooned into the largest by percentage of any major economy.  UK stocks, bonds and sterling, however, are trundling along as if all were well. What gives?

For a fuller discussion on the issue click here, but the gist is that all three asset classes  are being support by factors that may be masking the danger of a broad reversal. UK equities have been driven higher by the improving global economy, bonds held up by the Bank of England's huge buying programme and sterling by valuation and the distress of others.

But with the Bank of England's buying spree due to end soon and the possibility that UK voters won't give a clear victory to either the Conservatives or Labour, meaning political stalemate, is this set to change?

Royal Bank of Canada does not go as far as saying it will. But it says it is clear that not enough attention is being paid the prospect of  politics grinding to a halt and failing to solve the fiscal problem

Many sacred cows will have to be sacrificed in the years ahead, and this will require effective leadership, imagination, and courage. But the danger is that because of the political situation, the country is instead left with weak government, temporary expedients, and initiatives that are the lowest common denominator of long and exhausting negotiation.

Britain is not yet headed back to the 1970s, in our view, but such economic and political recidivism cannot be ruled out. Policy makers and money managers would do well to consult their history books and be alert to the errors and failings of 35 years ago

from Global Investing:

Global FTSE 100 shrugs off parochial UK GDP data

Britain's FTSE 100 seems to be almost impervious to any bad data that can be thrown at it. GDP data shocked the market showing the UK unexpectedly contracted in the third quarter.

Sterling tumbled more than a cent against the greenbackand gilts jumped while the FTSEurofirst 300 pan-European equity index trimmed gains considerably.

But Britain's FTSE shrugged it off, hugging its 1 percent gains in the face of data which shows the UK economy is still ailing badly.

 It is the cosmopolitan nature of the FTSE which is keeping it buoyant. Miners and energy firms make up over 32 percent of the index, while miners banks, also very much global institutions make up a further 16 percent.

Howard Wheeldon on BGC Partners says:

"The FTSE is a function of globalalisation and trading conditions and growth elsewhere in the world have more of an impact than domestic growth. If the global recession is over and demand is picking up internationally, it's all the more reason to close your eyes to what's going on in the tiny island that it happens to be registered in."

M&S needs to manage succession as well as recession

Marks & Spencer is finally getting to grips with the recession, first-quarter results from the bellwether retailer show. But it needs to sort out a row over management if its shares are to enjoy the full benefit.

Many investors are still up in arms over M&S’s decision last year to elevate the charismatic Stuart Rose to executive chairman — combining the roles of chairman and chief executive against corporate governance guidelines.

Rose survived a rebellion last year and must be hoping that forecast-beating first-quarter sales will draw the sting from opponents ahead of next Wednesday’s annual shareholder meeting.

But anger seems unlikely to die down. Three shareholder advisory groups — Glass Lewis, Pirc and RiskMetrics — have urged investors to back a rebel resolution which calls on M&S to appoint an independent chairman by July 2010.

The resolution, from local authority pension funds, is cleverly worded as it supports Rose’s re-election and so, unlike last year’s protest, is a clear vote on the principles of corporate governance and not on the man himself.

Anxious to avoid a fresh battle, Rose recently waived a third of shares awarded to him under a performance plan which some investors said was too generous.

To end the constant sniping that must be a distraction from running the business, Rose may have to compromise again.

Who do you blame for the credit crisis?

Bankers, politicians and regulators have taken their share of the blame for the credit crisis.

Gary Jenkins, Head of Fixed Income Research at Evolution Securities, polled about 200 investors for a more specific view on who was at fault.

Alan Greenspan, former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, was the most popular choice, with more than a third of the votes. Other more unusual picks included the BBC’s business correspondent Robert Peston and property TV show host Sarah Beeny.

If you could pick somone to blame who would it be?

from Global Investing:

Who gets the last laugh?

Public critisicm may be heating up against banking executives being rewarded with huge bonuses despite taking too much risk (especially ex Merill Lynch head John Thain who requested a bonus and spent $1,405 on a garbage pail during a $1.22 million renovation of his office).

However, there are smaller fish who are being rewarded after doing something similar -- taking too much risk and choosing the wrong bank in which to put their deposit. We're talking about those who deposited in the collapsed Icelandic bank Landsbanki.

Around 300,000 British savers had accounts worth some 4 billion pounds in Landsbanki's online savings provider Icesave, which offered competitive interest rates of up to 7-plus percent.

Britain has promised domestic Icesave savers would get all their money back via Britain's Financial Services Compensation Scheme, a statutory body that acts as a fund of last resort.

FSCC offered depositors options of getting all their money back or leaving fixed term savings until maturity.

Those who chose the latter, late last year, are set to receive the full interest promised by Icesave -- all 7-plus percent of it.

from Global Investing:

To spend, or not to spend?

A day after Britain unveiled a multi-billion-pound fiscal stimulus package to spend its way out of recession, market analysts have been busy figuring out what it all means, in the context of a sharply slowing economy.

Nick Parsons, head of market strategy at nabCapital, has come to this conclusion:

"People need to spend less, not more, and though little Johnny's Xbox is indeed 4 quid cheaper, his Dad's house is worth £3.97 less every hour,"he wrote in his daily note.

"That’s every hour of every day, 24 hours a day and is not going to get in the slightest bit better as a result of yesterday's budget announcement… Thanks to the VAT reduction, Easter eggs might be 10p cheaper next year but by then average house prices will be another £10,000 cheaper. Go figure."

Consumers go it alone as storm clouds gather

The dust has settled on Alistair Darling’s first Budget and consumers have been given little reason for celebration. The Chancellor, though announcing various measures designed to increase housing affordability, has done nothing to help the masses.

There were no moves to give a helping hand to hard-pressed householders, already struggling amid rocketing mortgage, food, fuel and tax costs, to ride out an impending recession. Darling did pledge to introduce a savings scheme targeted at low and moderate earners, often least able to save: the “saving gateway” will attract government matching for savings over the duration of people’s participation in the scheme. This has the potential to introduce up to eight million people into mainstream savings in the UK who otherwise might not make thrift a priority.

But the level of take-up of such a scheme, amid record personal debt levels and huge pressure on people’s purse-strings, is debatable. Other such government schemes to encourage the nation to save have hardly been a runaway success: think stakeholder pensions and child-trust funds (CTF). One fifth of parents currently let their CTF expire — the government can’t even give money away.

Individual savings accounts (ISAs), on the other hand, have flourished. They are one of the government’s true success stories. More than one in three adults hold an ISA and almost 215 billion pounds has been invested — making them far more popular than other savings initiatives.

Yet, the limits that savers can squirrel away into these tax-efficient vehicles have sorely failed to keep pace with inflation. The allowance will increase to 7,200 pounds from 7,000 pounds (3,600 pounds of which can be held in cash, up from 3,000 pounds) in the coming tax year — but that means the total threshold has risen by less than 3 percent since the accounts were introduced almost a decade ago. “Failing to increase ISA allowances further is a poke in the eye of savers who need encouragement to put away money,” says David Kuo, head of personal finance at Fool.co.uk.

Other changes to the ISA regime mean people will be able to switch cash holdings into stocks and shares — but the reverse will not be possible. And, once the switch has been made, there’s no turning back. The new rules raise the spectre of “another ghastly financial scandal”, according to Cliff Husband, research director at AWD Chase de Vere. “People could switch their ISA cash savings into investments unaware that they can’t switch back. This looks like another poorly delivered initiative from the government; it would be far fairer to all taxpayers if the switch between cash and investment within an ISA could be easily reversed.”

On pensions, too, there is little to encourage saving. While scrapping the 10 pence income tax rate and reducing the basic rate by 2 pence has done next to nothing to increase people’s take home pay, it has reduced the amount of tax relief they’ll get on their pension savings. The Chancellor has maintain higher level tax relief on gifts to charities, so why not for pensions?

Another “slap in face with wet kipper” Budget

By Francesca Lagerberg, head of the national tax office, Grant Thornton

Most Budgets have all the attraction of being slapped in the face with a wet kipper and sadly this one is unlikely to reverse the trend. As expected, from today up goes the cost of booze (4p on a pint) and fags (11p on a packet). Also for those who like driving larger less-green new cars there is a “showroom” tax coming in from 2009 that could cost them around 950 pounds.

However, for the entrepreneur there was a little cheer. After strong representations from business, Chancellor Alistair Darling has deferred the “income shifting” rules that were due to start from this April. These were a direct attack on family-owned businesses that include lower tax paying family members who take out dividends or profits but make a less significant contribution to the business. A case last year (Jones v Garnett) went against the government and it was looking to legislate to get the result it wanted. The proposals were wide-ranging and ill-targeted. A deferral will hopefully allow time to revisit this whole approach.

The working family got several name-checks in the Budget speech and this broadly amounts to an increase in child benefit (20 pounds per week for the first child) and the child element of child tax credit, but this will not take effect until April 2009.

There was no further change to the capital gains tax (CGT) regime so that from April 6 all individuals will be paying at a flat rate of 18 percent with the only hope of reducing the charge being a special entrepreneurs’ relief that has stringent qualifying conditions, but may help the smaller business to take their charge down to an effective rate of 10 percent. However, some others clearly benefit under the new regime. For example, those looking to sell a buy-to-let property after April will find that the new rules help them as the best tax rate they would get under the existing legislation would be 24 percent.

For non-domiciled individuals, the Chancellor provided further details on the radical changes taking effect from April 6. If they want to continue to get the tax advantages of being non-domiciled in the UK after then they will have to pay 30,000 pounds for the privilege once they are resident here for seven out of the past 10 years. However, for those who would not remotely be able to pay such a high levy remitting just small amounts of foreign income (2,000 pounds) will not be caught. This is a slight increase on the original 1,000 pound proposal. There is also a new test of where you were at midnight to work out what days you were really present in the UK, which may be more useful to internationally mobile workers than the rules we heard of last October at the pre-Budget report.

So, overall Darling’s first Budget was short on drama, but long on minor detail. A massive 207 pages of back-up notes support the Budget Red Book. For most people this event will provide little to cheer, but equally little to passionately dislike.