Category: Essentials of Economics: Ch 13

Posted on

Commercial banking: the emerging risks from the shadow-banking sector

Recently, a flurry of bankruptcies among non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) in the USA has drawn attention to the risks associated with alternative credit channels in the shadow-banking sector – lending which is not financed with deposits. There is concern that this could be the start of a wave of bankruptcies among such NBFIs, especially given concerns about a potential downswing in the economic cycle – a time when defaults are more likely.

While providing alternative sources of funding, the opacity of lending in the shadow-banking sector means it is not clear what risks NBFIs face themselves and, more significantly, what risks they pose to the financial system as a whole. There is particular concern about the impact on regulated banks.

Already, JP Morgan Chase in its third quarter earnings report announced a $170m charge stemming from the bankruptcy of Tricolor, which specialised in sub-prime car financing. Mid-sized banks, Western Alliance and Zions Bancorp, have reported losses from loans to a group of distressed real estate funds. This has highlighted the interconnectedness between NBFIs and regulated banking, and the potential for problems in the shadow-banking sector to have a direct impact on mainstream banks.

In this blog, we will trace the secular trends in the financial systems of more advanced economies which have given rise to alternative credit channels and, in turn, to potential banking crises. We will explain the relationship between regulated banks and shadow banks, analysing the risks involved, the potential impact on the financial system and the policy implications.

What are the secular trends in banking?

The traditional model of commercial banking involved taking deposits and using them to finance loans to households and firms. However, cycles of banking crises, regulatory changes and financial innovation over the past 50 years produced new models.

First, banks diversified away from direct lending to providing other banking services – on-balance sheet activities, such as investing in financial securities, and off-balance sheet activities, such as acting as agents in the sale of financial securities.

Second, alternative credit channels based on financial markets have grown in significance.

In the 1980s, international regulations around traditional banking activities – taking deposits and making loans – were being formalised by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) under what became known as the Basel framework (see, for example, Economics section 18.2 or Economics for Business section 28.2). For the first time, this stipulated liquidity and capital requirements for international banks relating to their traditional lending activities. However, at the same time the deregulation of financial markets and financial innovation provided banks with opportunities to derive revenues from a range of other financial services.

After the financial crisis, liquidity and capital requirements for banks were tightened further through the Basel III regulations. Commercial banks had to have even higher levels of capital as a buffer for bad debts associated with direct lending. A higher level of capital to cover potential losses increases the marginal cost of lending, since each pound of additional loan requires additional capital. This reduced the marginal return, and consequently, the incentive to lend directly.

These regulatory developments created an incentive to pursue activities which do not require as much capital, since their marginal cost is lower and potential return is higher. Consequently, banks have placed less emphasis on lending and more on purchasing short-term and long-term financial securities and generating non-interest income from off-balance sheet activities. For instance, research by the Bank of England found that during the 1980s, interest income accounted for more than two-thirds of total income for large international banks. In contemporary times, non-interest income tends to be greater than interest income. Figure 1 illustrates the declining proportion of total assets represented by commercial and consumer loans for all regulated US banks. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

With banks originating less lending, activity has migrated to different avenues in the shadow-banking sector. This sector has always existed, but deregulation and financial innovation created opportunities for the growth of shadow banking – lending which is not financed with deposits. Traditionally, non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs), such as pension funds, hedge funds and insurance companies, use funds from investors to buy securities through financial markets. However, new types of NBFIs have emerged which originate loans themselves, notably private credit institutions. As Figure 2 illustrates, a lot of the expansion in the activities of NBFIs has been the due to increased lending by these institutions (defined as ‘other financial institutions (OFIs)). Note that the NBFI line includes OFIs. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

Since, NBFIs operate outside conventional regulatory frameworks, their credit intermediation and maturity transformation are not subject to the same capital requirements or oversight that banks are. As a result, they do not need to have the same level of capital to insulate against loan losses. Therefore, lending in the shadow-banking sector has a lower marginal cost compared to equivalent lending in the banking sector. Consequently, it generates a higher rate of return. This can explain the large growth in the assets of OFIs illustrated in Figure 2.

Risks in shadow banking

Banking involves trade-offs and this is the case whether the activities happen in the regulated or shadow-banking sector. Increasing lending increases profitability. But as lending continues to increase, at some point the risk-return profile becomes less favourable since institutions are lending to increasingly higher-risk borrowers and for higher-risk projects.

In downturns, when rates of defaults rise, such risks become apparent. Borrowers fail and default, causing significant loan losses for lenders. With lower levels of capital, NBFIs will have a lower buffer to insulate investors from these losses, increasing the likelihood of default.

Is this a problem? Well, for a long-time regulators thought not. It was thought that failures in the shadow-banking sector would have no implications for deposit-holders in regulated banks and the payments mechanism. Unfortunately, current developments in the USA have highlighted that this is unlikely to be the case.

The connections between regulated and shadow banking

The financial system is highly interconnected, and each successive financial crisis has shown that systemic risks lurk in obscure places. On the face of it, NBFIs appear separate from regulated banks. But banks’ new business models have not removed them from the lending channel, merely changed their role. Short-term financing used to be conducted and funded by banks. Now, it is conducted by NBFIs, but still financed by banks. Long-term loan financing is no longer on banks’ balance sheets. However, while the lending is conducted by NBFIs, it is largely funded by banks.

NBFIs cannot be repositories of liquidity. Since they do not have deposits and are not part of the payments system, they have no access to official liquidity backstops. So, they do so indirectly by using deposit-taking banks as liquidity insurance. Banks provide this liquidity in a variety of ways:

  • Investing in the securities issued by private capital funds;
  • Providing bridge financing to credit managers to securitise credit card receivables;
  • Providing prime broker financing to a hedge fund engaged in proprietary trading.

Furthermore, banks have increasingly made loans to NBFIs. Data for US commercial banks lending to the shadow-banking sector are publicly available only since 2015. But, as Figure 3 illustrates, it has seen a steady upward trend with a surge in activity in 2025. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

Banks had an incentive to diversify into these activities since they are a source of revenue requiring less regulatory capital. The model requires risk and return to follow capital out of the banking system into the shadow-banking sector. However, while risky capital and its associated expected return have moved in the shadow-banking system, not all of the liquidity and credit default risk may have done so. Ultimately, some of that risk may be borne by the deposit-holders of the banks.

This is not an issue if banks are fully aware of the risks. However, problems arise when banks do not know the full risks they are taking.

There are reasons why this may be the case. Credit markets involve significant asymmetric information between lenders and borrowers. This creates conditions for the classic problems of moral hazard and adverse selection.

Moral hazard is a hidden action problem, whereby borrowers take greater risks because they share the possible downside losses with the lender. Adverse selection is the hidden information problem, whereby lenders do not have full information about the riskiness of borrowers or their activities.

The economics of information suggests that banks exploit scale, scope and learning economies to overcome the costs associated with asymmetric information in lending. However, that applies to direct lending when banks have full information about credit default risk on their loan book. When banks finance lending indirectly through NBFIs, there is an extension of the intermediation chain, and while banks may know the NBFIs, they will have much less information about the risks associated with the lending they are ‘underwriting’. This heightens their problems of asymmetric information associated with credit default risk.

What are the risks at present?

The level of debt in the global economy is at unprecedented levels. Data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) show that it rose to $351 trillion dollars in 2024, approximately 235% of weighted global gross domestic product (GDP). It is in this environment that private credit channels through NBFIs have been expanding. With this, it is more likely that NBFIs’ trade-off between credit risk and return has tilted greatly in favour of the former. Some point to the recent collapse of Tricolor and First Brands – both intermediary financing companies funded by private credit – as evidence of elevated levels of risk.

Many are pointing out that the failures observed in the USA so far have a whiff of fraud associated with them, with suggestions of multiple loans being secured against the same working capital. However, such behaviour is symptomatic of ‘late-cycle’ lending, where the incentive to squeeze more profit from lending in a more competitive environment leads to short-cuts – short-cuts that banks, at one stage removed along the intermediation chain, will have less information about.

It is in a downturn that such risks become apparent. Widening credit spreads and the reduced availability of credit causes financial stress for higher-risk borrowers. Inevitably, that higher risk will lead to higher defaults, more provision for loan losses and write-downs in the value of loan assets.

While investors in NBFIs are first in line to bear the losses, they are not the only ones exposed. At moments of stress, the credit lines that banks have provided get drawn and that increases the exposure of banks to the risks associated with NBFIs and whoever they have lent to. As NBFIs fail, the financing provided by banks will not be repaid and they will thus have to absorb losses associated with the lending of the NBFIs. So, while it appears that risk has left the banking system, it hasn’t. Ultimately, the liquidity and credit default risk of the non-bank sector is financed by bank deposits.

Furthermore, the opaqueness of the exposure of banks to risks in the shadow-banking sector may have issues for the wider financial system. In 2008, banks became wary of lending to each other during the financial crisis because they didn’t know the exposure of counterparty institutions to losses from securitised debt instruments. Now, as more and more banks reveal exposures to NBFIs, concerns about the unknown position of other banks may produce a repeat of the credit crunch which occurred then. A seizing up of credit markets will worsen any downturn. However, unlike 2008, the financial resources available to central banks and governments to deal with any consequences are severely limited.

Only time and the path of the US economy will reveal the extent of any contagion related to lending in the shadow-banking sector. However, central banks are already worried about the risks associated with the shadow-banking sector and have been taking steps to identify and ameliorate them. Events in the USA over the past few weeks may accelerate the process and bring more of that lending within the regulatory cordon.

Articles

Academic paper

Data

Questions

  1. Explain why the need to hold more capital raises its cost for banks.
  2. Why does this reduce the lending they undertake?
  3. What is the attraction of ‘off-balance sheet transactions’ for regulated banks?
  4. Analyse the asymmetric information that banks face when providing liquidity to non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs).
  5. Examine the dangers for the financial system associated with regulated banks’ exposure to NBFIs?
  6. Discuss some policy recommendations regarding bank lending to NBFIs.
Posted on

A single European market in banking

Large European banks call for further integration, but is it in consumers’ interests?

Those of a certain age may remember the fanfare which heralded the introduction of the Single European market (SEM) on 1 January 1993. It promised the removal of internal barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital and people. One sector that was noticeably absent from the single market, however, was banking.

Moves towards banking union only started after the global financial crisis in 2008. However, as a report published on the 2 September 2025 by the Association of Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) highlights, the institutional frameworks of banking in the EU are still deeply fragmented – the promised integration through the European Banking Union (EBU) is still incomplete. This has put European banks at a competitive disadvantage in global markets compared with rivals from the USA and Asia, thereby reducing their profitability and growth prospects. The report called on the European Central Bank (ECB) and national regulatory authorities to remove hurdles to cross-border banking services in the EU. This would enhance the strategic position of European banks.

In this blog we will trace the development of the EBU and analyse the current state of integration. We discuss the AFME proposals for achieving greater integration and highlight their benefits for large banks. We also analyse the barriers which limit full integration and examine the risks that retail customers might see few benefits from the proposed changes.

What is meant by European Banking Union (EBU)?

The 1993 Single European Market (SEM) in goods and services removed internal barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU. As part of this, there were harmonised standards and regulations for goods and services, no capital controls, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and common regulations on consumer protection, product safety, environmental protection and labour rights.

This integration of previously restricted domestic markets was designed to boost economic growth, employment and competitiveness by increasing trade and investment flows. Offering consumers greater choice would expose firms to greater competition. This would drive down prices and encourage greater efficiency and innovation. It has generally achieved these goals across many industries.

However, banking was excluded from integration. The 1985 White Paper, Completing the Internal Market, proposed the liberalisation of financial services, but banking remained regulated at the national level. This was influenced by interrelated economic, political and institutional forces, national sovereignty and political sensitivities, fragmented regulation and concerns about risk.

Even as the EU moved towards economic and monetary union (EMU) during the 1990s, there was no discussion of integration for the banking industry. However, that changed following the 2008 financial crisis and 2011 eurozone crisis. Both episodes exposed vulnerabilities in the EU banking system which required taxpayer support. It was proposed that deeper integration of the banking sector would ensure its stability and resilience. This stimulated moves towards European Banking Union (EBU), starting with the European Council agreeing its creation in 2012. There are three institutional pillars to the Union:

  1. The Single Supervisory Mechanism (2014) for systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) ensures consistent oversight. SIFIs are banks with over €30 billion of liabilities or 20% of national GDP.
  2. The Single Resolution Mechanism (2016) manages the orderly resolution of failing banks with minimal costs to taxpayers. There is a central board for resolution decisions and a fund financed by the banking industry to support resolution actions.
  3. A European Deposit Insurance Scheme (still under negotiation) is proposed to protect depositors uniformly across the banking union against bank default.


The Union is intended to operate under a harmonised set of EU laws, known as the ‘Single Rulebook’, which includes implementing the BASEL III capital requirements, regulating national deposit insurance and setting rules for managing failing banks.

What is the state of integration at present?

Moves towards European Banking Union (EBU) have contributed to enhancing the resilience of the European banking system. This was one of its major objectives. European banks are much more secure having increased capital and liquidity levels, reduced credit risks and become less reliant on state-aid. They are also less profitable.

The AFME report points to remaining gaps in Banking Union which raise the cost for banks offering cross-border retail banking within the EU and limit the incentive to do so. The report identifies four such gaps.

1. Ring fencing.  Although there is a single supervisory mechanism for large systemically important institutions, since the financial crisis national regulators have implemented ‘ring-fencing’. This aims to protect retail banking activities from riskier investment banking. Ring-fencing retains liquidity, dividends and other bank assets within national borders to protect their retail banking sectors from contagion. The ECB estimates €225 billion of capital and €250 billion of liquidity is trapped by such national restrictions. Further, unharmonized and unpredictable use of capital buffers adds complexity for capital management at a multinational level. This particularly impacts large institutions. Banks’ cross-border activities are impeded since they are restricted in the way they can use capital and liquidity across the bloc.

The report argues that the stringent requirements of the ECB and the multiple layers of macroprudential requirements imposed at national level have led to an unnecessarily high level of capital. This disadvantages large European banks compared to their international competitors.

2. Impediments to cross-border M&As in banking within the EU.  This is due to cumbersome authorisation processes, involving multiple authorities at both national and supra-national level. Further, national authorities may interfere in the process of M&As in a bid to prevent domestic banks being acquired by ones from other parts of the EU. A recent example is UniCredit’s bid for Germany’s Commerzbank, which the German government opposes. These characteristics restrict opportunities for consolidation and efficiency gains for European banks.

The AFME report estimates that once eurozone banks grow beyond €450 billion in total assets, they suffer from negative synergies putting them at a competitive disadvantage to global competitors. Indeed, US banks are able to leverage scale economies from their domestic market to enter large EU markets. An example is JP Morgan’s entry into multiple EU markets through its Chase brand.

3. Contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) are complex and lack transparency.  This makes it difficult for banks to predict future commitments. The fund itself and its target level were determined at a time when banks had low buffers. Since then, European banks have raised their loss absorbing capacity and the AFME report proposes that further increases in contributions to the fund need to be carefully considered and reviewed.

4. The Deposit Guarantee Scheme remains unimplemented and there are still differences in national schemes.  This situation creates uncertainty for banks, which would like the European scheme for large systemically important institutions to be implemented fully.

These AFME proposals focus on the aspects of banking union which benefit large European institutions in their strategic competition with global rivals. These aspects would create ‘European’ banks as opposed to ‘national’ ones. This would give them the scale to be ‘champions’ in global competition. In particular, the large banks want lower capital requirements and the relaxation of national ring-fencing for retail banking to allow them greater freedom to achieve scale and scope economies across the bloc.

To what extent this will benefit retail customers, however, is debateable.

Will retail banking customers benefit?

Retail banking across Europe remains deeply fragmented, with significant price differentials from country to country. The following table illustrates pricing differentials for two retail products – loans and mortgages – across a sample of EU countries for July 2025.


The data show a range of average interest rates offered across the countries with a range of 5.03% for loans to households and 0.92% for new mortgages. These price differentials reflect a broad array of factors, not least the different institutional legal and risk characteristics of the national markets. They also reflect varying degrees of competition and the lack of cross-border trade in retail banking products. Retail banking remains a largely domestic industry within the EU. Cross-border banking services remain a marginal activity with non-domestic retail deposits rising by just 0.5% and non-domestic retail loans rising by just 0.3% between 2016 and 2024.

There are both natural and policy-induced barriers, which means that retail banking will remain largely segmented by nation.

On the demand-side, retail banking is largely a relational rather than a transactional service, with consumption taking place over a long time-period with significant financial risks attached. Even with deposit insurance and a lender of last resort (the central bank), consumers exhibit significant loss aversion in their use of retail banking services. Consequently, trust and confidence are important characteristics for consumers and that means they are likely to prefer to use familiar domestic institutions.

Further, perceptions about switching costs mean that consumers are reluctant to change suppliers. Such costs are exacerbated by language, cultural and legal differences between European countries, which can make the perceived costs of banking beyond national boundaries prohibitively expensive and create a preference for local institutions.

Consumer preferences can also create idiosyncratic market structures for retail banking services in particular countries. For instance, in several countries across the EU, notably Germany, mutualised credit unions account for significant shares of retail banking. This may limit the potential for foreign banks to penetrate Europe’s largest market.

There are also policy-induced obstacles to cross-border retail banking which operate on the demand-side. These include discriminatory tax treatment of foreign financial services which deters their purchase by consumers. Further, there are still eight different currencies used in the EU across the 27 member states (Denmark, Poland and Sweden are three significant examples). This creates costs and risks associated with currency exchange for consumers that may deter their use of cross-border deposits and loans. The full adoption of a single currency across the EU seems a long way off, which will limit the potential for a single banking market, particularly in the retail segment.

Retail banking as a public utility

Some argue that retail banking is a public utility and should be regulated as such. It has a simple business model, taking deposits, making payments and making loans. Like other utilities, such as water and energy, retail banking is an essential service for the smooth functioning of the economy and society. Like other utilities, bank failures create severe problems for the economy and society.

Since the financial crisis, stability in retail banking has been much more highly valued. In the period preceding the crisis, banks had used retail deposits to cross-subsidise their risky investment banking. The bank failures that resulted from this had severe economic consequences. The danger today is that by relaxing capital and liquidity restrictions too much, large banks may once again engage in risky behaviour, subsidised by retail banking – for example, by engaging in cross-border M&As. These may benefit their shareholders but provide little benefit to retail customers.

Further, allowing these large banks freedom to move funds around the bloc may lead to capital being concentrated in the most profitable markets, leaving less profitable markets / countries underserved. Retail banking, as a public utility, should be required to provide services there.

Who ultimately benefits?

The integration of banking services in the EU has progressed since the financial crisis, producing a more resilient system. However, there are features of retail banking which mean that integration which benefits consumers may be difficult to achieve.

Addressing the policy gaps identified by the AFME report may benefit large European banks by facilitating the scale economies to make them competitive internationally. However, until consumers are prepared, or able, to source banking services beyond national borders, they will see little benefit from European Banking Union (EBU) through lower prices and/or better service. The nature of retail banking in the EU suggests that this is unlikely any time soon.

Furthermore, since retail banking exhibits features of a public utility, regulators need to be wary of permitting the type of behaviour by large institutions which creates dangerous systemic risk. The worry is that, in the drive to create ‘European Champions’ in banking, regulators ignore the potential impact on retail customers.

Articles

Book

Report

Data and Information

Questions

  1. Using an average cost (AC) schedule, illustrate the efficiency benefits for large European banks from banking union.
  2. Analyse the sources of efficiency gains that European banks can gain from cross-border M&As.
  3. Explain how European retail banking customers could gain from such efficiency.
  4. Analyse why they may not.
  5. Analyse whether retail banking in Europe needs to be regulated as a public utility.
Posted on

Gold: why the world’s oldest safe haven is back in the spotlight

The gold market has become one of the most talked-about commodity markets in 2025, with prices reaching record highs. This is largely due to increased demand from investors, who see gold as a ‘safe haven’ during times of economic and political uncertainty. Central banks are also buying more gold as a way to reduce their reliance on currencies like the US dollar. With many analysts predicting prices could reach over $4000 per ounce in the next year, the gold market is showcasing how supply and demand, confidence, and global events can all influence a commodity market.

The commodities market is where basic agricultural products, raw materials and metals, such as gold, are bought and sold, often in large quantities and across global exchanges. Commodities are typically traded either in their physical form (like gold bars) at current market prices (spot prices) or through financial contracts, where investors buy or sell in futures markets. These are where a price is agreed today to buy or sell on a specific future date.

As with other commodities, the price of gold is determined by supply and demand. Demand for gold typically rises during times of economic uncertainty as investors want a safer store of value. This results in an increase in its price. Supply and demand, and hence price, also respond to other factors, including interest rates, currency movements, economic growth and growth prospects, and geopolitical events.

Record high prices

This year, the gold market has seen a remarkable rally, with the price of gold hitting a record high. Demand for the precious metal has resulted in spot prices surging over 35% to date (see the chart: click here for a PowerPoint). Rising prices earlier this year have been attributed to the US President, Donald Trump, announcing wide-ranging tariffs which have upset global trade. On 2 September, the spot gold price hit $3508.50 per ounce, continuing its upwards trend.

The price has also been lifted by expectations that the Federal Reserve (the US central bank) will cut its key interest rate, making gold an even more attractive prospect for investors. If the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates, the price of gold usually increases. This is because gold does not pay any interest or yield, so when interest rates are high, investors can earn better returns from alternatives, such as savings accounts or bonds. However, when interest rates fall, those returns become less attractive, making gold relatively more appealing.

Lower interest rates also tend to weaken the US dollar, which makes gold cheaper for foreign buyers, increasing global demand. Since gold is priced in dollars, a weaker dollar usually leads to higher gold prices.

Additionally, interest rate cuts are often a response to economic problems or uncertainty. As gold is viewed as a safer asset for investors during times of economic uncertainty, investors will typically increase their demand.

Unlike the market for currencies or shares, gold doesn’t rely on the performance of a government or company. This makes it attractive when people are worried about things like inflation, recession, war or stock market crashes. Gold is thus seen as a ‘safe haven’.

Gold and the Federal Reserve

The rise in the price of gold by more than a third this year can be linked to the US election last year, according to the director of research at BullionVault (see the BBC article below). Attitudes of the Trump administration towards the Federal Reserve have created concerns among investors. Fears that the US administration could erode the independence of the world’s most important central bank have fuelled the latest flows into the metal, which is traditionally viewed as a hedge against inflation.

According to the BBC article, Derren Nathan from Hargreaves Lansdown claims that it is Trump’s ‘attempts to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve Bank’ that were ‘driving renewed interest in safe haven assets, including gold’. Investors are concerned that a politicised Fed would be more inclined to cut interest rates than would otherwise be the case, sending long-term inflation expectations higher.

This could lead to fears that future interest rates would then be pushed higher. This would increase the yields on longer-term government bonds by pushing down their price, as investors demand higher compensation for the increased risk of higher future interest rates reducing the value of their fixed-rate investments. This would force the US Treasury to pay higher interest on new bonds, making it more expensive to service US government debt.

Expected price rises for 2026

As we saw above, it is predicted that the price of gold will rise to $4000 per ounce next year. However, if the market sees investors move away from dollar assets, such as US Treasuries, the price increases would be even higher. Daan Struyven, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman Sachs explains ‘If 1 per cent of the privately owned US Treasury market were to flow to gold, the gold price would rise to nearly $5000 per troy ounce’ (see Financial Times article below).

If the Federal Reserve does come under political pressure, it could affect the stability of the US economy and beyond. When gold prices rise sharply, demand usually falls in countries like China and India, which are the world’s largest buyers of gold jewellery. However, in 2025, this trend has changed. Instead of reducing their gold purchases, people in these countries have started buying investment gold, such as bars and coins, showing a shift in consumer behaviour from jewellery to investment assets.

At the same time, global events are also influencing the gold market. Suki Cooper, a metals analyst at Standard Chartered, said that events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have added to political uncertainty, which tends to increase demand for gold as a safe-haven asset. She also highlighted how changes in international trade policies have disrupted supply chains and contributed to higher inflation, both of which have made gold more attractive to investors. Additionally, a weaker US dollar earlier in the year made gold cheaper for buyers using other currencies, which boosted global demand even further.

Conclusion

Although the gold market is expected to remain strong over the next six months, some uncertainty remains. Many analysts predict that gold prices will stay high or even increase further, especially if interest rates in the US are cut as expected. Continued global instability, is also likely to keep demand for gold as a safe haven high. At the same time, if inflation stays elevated or trade disruptions continue, more investors may turn to gold to protect their wealth.

However, if economic conditions stabilise or interest rates rise again, gold demand could fall slightly, leading to a potential dip in prices. Overall, the outlook for gold remains positive, but sensitive to changes in global economic and political events.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. What factors influence the price of a commodity such as gold on the global market?
  2. Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate what has been happening to the gold price in recent months.
  3. Find out what has been happening to silver prices. Are the explanations for the price changes the same as for gold?
  4. Why might investors choose to buy gold during times of economic or political uncertainty?
  5. How will changes in interest rates affect both the demand for and the price of gold?
  6. What are the possible consequences of rising gold prices for countries like India and China, where there is a traditionally high demand for gold jewellery?
  7. How do global events impact commodity markets? Use gold as an example in your answer.
Posted on

Low UK business investment: the problem of high minimum expected rates of return

The UK’s poor record on productivity since the 2008 financial crisis is well documented, not least in this blog series. Output per worker has flatlined over the 17 years since the crisis. As was noted in the blog, The UK’s poor productivity record, low UK productivity is caused by a number of factors, including the lack of investment in training, the poor motivation of many workers and the feeling of being overworked, short-termism among politicians and management, and generally poor management practices.

One of the most significant issues identified by analysts and commentators is the lack of investment in physical capital, both by private companies and by the government in infrastructure. Gross fixed capital formation (a measure of investment) has been much lower in the UK compared to international competitors.

From Figure 1 it can be observed that, since the mid-1990s, the UK has consistently had lower investment as a percentage of GDP compared to other significant developed market economies. The cumulative effect of this gap has contributed to lower productivity and lower economic growth.

Interestingly, since the financial crisis, UK firms have had high profitability and associated high cash holdings. This suggests that firms have had a lot of financial resources to reinvest. However, data from the OECD suggests that reinvestment rates in the UK, typically 40–50% of profit, are much lower than in many other OECD countries. In the USA the rate is 50%, in Germany 60–70% and in Japan 70%+. There is much greater emphasis in the UK on returning funds to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. However, the reinvestment of much of this cash within firms could have gone some way to addressing the UK’s investment gap – but, it hasn’t been done.

Analysis by the OECD suggest that, while the cost of financing investment has declined since the financial crisis, the gap between this and the hurdle rate used to appraise investments has widened. Between 2010 and 2021 the difference nearly doubled to 4%. This increase in the hurdle rate can be related to increases in the expected rate of return by UK companies and their investors.

In this blog we will analyse (re)investment decisions by firms, discussing how increases in the expected rate of return in the UK raise the hurdle rate used to appraise investments. This reduces the incentive to engage in long-term investment. We also discuss policy prescriptions to improve reinvestment rates in the UK.

Investment and the expected rate of return

Investment involves the commitment of funds today to reap rewards in the future. This includes spending on tangible and intangible resources to improve the productive capacity of firms. Firms must decide whether the commitment of funds is worthwhile. To do so, economic theory suggests that they need to consider the compensation required by their provider of finance – namely, investors.

What rewards do investors require to keep their funds invested with the firm?

When conducting investment appraisal, firms compare the estimated rate of return from an investment with the minimum return investors are prepared to receive (termed the ‘expected return’). Normally this is expressed as a percentage of the initial outlay. Firms have to offer returns to investors which are equal to or greater than the minimum expected return – the return that is sufficient to keep funds invested in the firm. Therefore, returns above this minimum expected level are termed ‘excess returns’.

When firms conduct appraisals of potential investments, be it in tangible or intangible capital, they need to take into account the fact that net benefits, expressed as cash flows, will accrue over the life of the investment, not all at once. To do this, they use discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This converts future values of the net benefits to their present value. This is expressed as follows:

Where:
NPV = Net present value (discounted net cash flows);
K = Capital outlay (incurred at the present time);
C = Net cash flows (occur through the life of the investment project);
r = Minimum expected rate of return.

In this scenario, the investment involves an initial cash outlay (K), followed in subsequent periods by net cash inflows each period over the life of the investment, which in this case is 25 years. All the cash flows are discounted back to the present so that they can be compared at the same point in time.

The discount rate (r) used in appraisals to determine the present value of net cash flows is determined by the minimum expected return demanded by investors. If at that hurdle rate there are positive net cash flows (+NPV), the investment is worthwhile and should be pursued. Conversely, if at that hurdle rate there are negative net cash flows (–NPV), the investment is not worthwhile and should not be pursued.

According to economic theory, if a firm cannot find any investment projects that produce a positive NPV, and therefore satisfy the minimum expected return, it should return funds to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks so that they can invest the finance more productively.

Firm-level data from the OECD suggest that UK firms have had higher profits and this has been associated with increased cash holdings. But, due to the higher hurdle rate, less investment is perceived to be viable and thus firms distribute more of their profits through dividends and share buybacks. These payouts represent lost potential investment and cumulatively produce a significant dent in the potential output of the UK economy.

Why are expected rates of return higher in the UK?

This higher minimum rate of expected return can be explained by factors influencing its determinants; opportunity cost and risk/uncertainty.

Higher opportunity cost.  Opportunity cost relates to the rate of return offered by alternatives. Investors and, by implication firms, will have to consider the rate of return offered by alternative investment opportunities. Typically, investors have focused on interest rates as a measure of opportunity cost. Higher interest rates raise the opportunity cost of an investment and increase the minimum expected rate of return (and vice versa with lower interest rates).

However, it is not interest rates that have increased the opportunity cost, and hence the minimum expected rate of return associated with investment, in the UK since the financial crisis. For most of the period since 2008, interest rates have been extremely low, sitting at below 1%, only rising significantly during the post-pandemic inflationary surge in 2022. This indicates that this source of opportunity cost for the commitment of business investment has been extremely low.

However, there may be alternative sources of opportunity cost which are pushing up the expected rate of return. UK investors are not restricted to investing in the UK and can move their funds between international markets determined by the rate of return offered. The following table illustrates the returns (in terms of percentage stock market index gain) from investing in a sample of UK, US, French and German stock markets between August 2010 and August 2025.

When expressed in sterling, returns offered by UK-listed companies are lower across the whole period and in most of the five-yearly sub-periods. Indeed, the annual equivalent rate of return (AER) for the FTSE 100 index across the whole period is less than half that of the S&P 500. The index offered a paltry annual return of 2.57% between 2015 and 2020, while the US index offered a return of 16.48%. Both the French and German indices offered higher rates of return, in the latter part of the period particularly. This represents a higher opportunity cost for UK investors and may have increased their expectations about the return they require for UK investments.

Greater perceived risk/uncertainty.  Expected rates of return are also determined by perceptions of risk and uncertainty – the compensation investors need to bear the perceived risk associated with an investment. Investors are risk averse. They demand higher expected return as compensation for higher perceived risk. Higher levels of risk aversion increase the expected rate of return and related investment hurdle rates.

There has been much discussion of increased uncertainty and risk aversion among global investors and firms (see the blogs Rising global uncertainty and its effects, World Uncertainty Index, The Chancellor’s fiscal dilemma and Investment set to fall as business is baffled by Trump). The COVID-19 pandemic, inflation shocks, the war in Ukraine, events across the Middle East and the trade policies adopted by the USA in 2025 have combined to produce a very uncertain business environment.

While these have been relatively recent factors influencing world-wide business uncertainty, perceptions of risk and uncertainty concerning the UK economy seem to be longer established. To measure policy-related economic uncertainty in the UK, Baker, Bloom and Davis at www.PolicyUncertainty.com construct an index based on the content analysis of newspaper articles mentioning terms reflecting policy uncertainty.

Figure 2 illustrates the monthly index from 1998 to July 2025. The series is normalised to standard deviation 1 prior to 2011 and then summed across papers, by month. Then, the series is normalised to mean 100 prior to 2011.

Some of the notable spikes in uncertainty in the UK since 2008 have been labelled. Beginning with the global financial crisis, investors and firms became much more uncertain. This was exacerbated by a series of economic shocks that hit the economy, one of which, the narrow vote to leave the European Union in 2016, was specific to the UK. This led to political turmoil and protracted negotiations over the terms of the trade deal after the UK left. This uncertainty has been exacerbated recently by the series of global shocks highlighted above and also the budget uncertainty of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership and now the growing pressure to reduce government borrowing.

While spikes in uncertainty occurred before the financial crises, the average level of uncertainty, as measured by the index, has been much higher since the crisis. From 1998 to 2008, the average value was 89. Since 2008, the average value has been 163. Since the Brexit vote, the average value has been 185. This indicates a much higher perception of risk and uncertainty over the past 15 year and this translates into higher minimum expected return as compensation. Consequently, this makes many long-term investment projects less viable because of higher hurdle rates. This produces less productive investment in capital, contributing significantly to lower productivity.

Policy proposals

There has been much debate in the UK about promoting greater long-term investment. Reforms have been proposed to improve public participation in long-term investment through the stock market. To boost investment, this would require the investing public to be prepared to accept lower expected returns for a given level of risk or accept higher risk for a given level of returns.

Evidence suggests that the appetite for this may be very low. UK savers tend to favour less risky and more liquid cash deposits. It may be difficult to encourage them to accept higher levels of risk. In any case, even if they did, many may invest outside the UK where the risk-return trade-off is more favourable.

Over the past 10 years, policy uncertainty has played a significant role in deterring investment. So, if there is greater continuity, this may then promote higher levels of investment.

The Labour government has proposed policies which aim to share or reduce the risk/uncertainty around long-term investment for UK businesses. For instance, a National Wealth Fund (NWF) has been established to finance strategic investment in areas such as clean energy, gigafactories and carbon capture. Unfortunately, the Fund is financed by borrowing through financial markets and the amount expected to be committed over the life of the current Parliament is only £29 billion, assuming that private capital matches public commitments in the ratio expected. It is questionable whether the Fund’s commitment will be sufficient to attract private capital.

Alternatively, Invest 2035 is a proposal to create a stable, long-term policy environment for business investment. It aims to establish an Industrial Strategy Council for policy continuity and to tackle issues like improving infrastructure, reducing energy costs and addressing skills gaps. Unfortunately, even if there is some attempt at domestic policy stability, the benefits may be more than offset by perceptions around global uncertainty, which may mean that UK investors’ minimum expected rates of return remain high and long-term investment low for the foreseeable future.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Use the marginal efficiency of capital framework to illustrate the ‘lost’ investment spending in the UK due to the investment hurdle rate being higher than the cost of capital.
  2. Explain the arbitrage process which produces the differences in valuations of UK securities and foreign ones due to differences in the expected rate of return.
  3. Sketch an indifference curve for a risk-averse investor, treating expected return and risk as two characteristics of a financial instrument.
  4. How does higher uncertainty affect the slope of an indifference curve for such an investor? How does this affect their investment hurdle rate?
  5. Analyse the extent to which the proposed polices can reduce the investment hurdle rate for UK companies and encourage greater levels of investment.
Posted on

The Chancellor’s fiscal dilemma

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will present her annual Budget in late autumn. It will involve some hard economic and political choices. The government would like to spend more money on improving public services but has pledged not to raise taxes ‘on working people’, which is interpreted as not raising the rates of income tax, national insurance for employees and the self-employed, and VAT. What is more, government borrowing is forecast by the OBR to be £118 billion, or nearly 4.0% of GDP, for the the year 2025/26. This is a fall from the 5.1% in 2024/25 and is well below the 15.0% in 2020/21 during the pandemic. But it is significantly above the 2.1% in 2018/19.

The government has pledged to stick to its two fiscal rules. The first is that the day-to-day, or ‘current’, budget (i.e. excluding investment) should be in surplus or in deficit of no more than 0.5 per cent of GDP by 2029/30 (or the third year of the rolling forecast period from the 2026/27 Budget). This allows investment to be funded by borrowing. The second rule is that public-sector net debt, which includes public-sector debt plus pension liabilities minus equity, loans and other financial assets, should be falling by 2029/30 (or the third year of the rolling forecast period from the 2026/27 Budget). The current budget deficit (i.e. excluding borrowing for investment) was forecast by the OBR in March to be 1.2% of GDP for 2025/26 (see Chart 1) and to be a surplus of 0.3% in 2029/30 (£9.9 billion). (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

The OBR’s March forecasts, therefore, were that the rules would be met with current policies and that the average rate of economic growth would be 1.8% over the next four years.

However, there would be very little room for manoeuvre, and with global political and economic uncertainty, including the effects of tariffs, climate change on harvests and the continuing war in Ukraine, the rate of economic growth might be well below 1.8%.

The March forecasts were based on the assumption that inflation would fall and hence that the Bank of England would reduce interest rates. Global pressure on inflation, however, might result in inflation continuing to be above the Bank of England’s target of 2%. This would mean that interest rates would be slow to fall – if at all. This would dampen growth and make it more expensive for the government to service the public-sector debt, thus making it harder to reduce the public-sector deficit.

A forecast earlier this month by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) (see link below and Chart 2) reflects these problems and paints a gloomier picture than the OBR’s March forecast. The NIESR forecasts that GDP will grow by only 1.3 per cent in 2025, 1.2 per cent in 2026, 1.1% in 2027 and 1.0% in 2028, with the average for 2025 to 2023 being 1.13%. This is the result of high levels of business uncertainty and the effects of tariffs on exports. With no change in policy, the current deficit would be £41.2 billion in the 2029/30 financial year. Inflation would fall somewhat, but would stick at around 2.7% from 2028 to 2030. Net debt would be rising in 2029/30 &ndash but only slightly, from 98.7% to 99.0%. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

So what are the policy options open to the government for dealing with a forecast current budget deficit of £41.2 billion (1.17% of GDP)? There are only three broad options.

Increase borrowing

One approach would be to scrap the fiscal rules and accept increased borrowing – at least temporarily. This would avoid tax increases or expenditure cuts. By running a larger budget deficit, this Keynesian approach would also have the effect of increasing aggregate demand and, other things being equal, could lead to a multiplied rise in national income. This in turn would lead to higher tax revenues and thereby result in a smaller increase in borrowing.

There are two big problems with this approach, however.

The first is that it would, over time, increase the public-sector debt and would involve having to spend more each year on servicing that debt. This would leave less tax revenue for current spending or investment. It would also involve having to pay higher interest rates to encourage people to buy the additional new government bonds necessary to finance the increased deficit.

The second problem is that the Chancellor has said that she will stick to the fiscal rules. If she scraps them, if only temporarily, she runs the risk of losing the confidence of investors. This could lead to a run on the pound and even higher interest rates. This was a problem under the short-lived Liz Truss government when the ‘mini’ Budget of September 2022 made unfunded pledges to cut taxes. There was a run on the pound and the Bank of England had to make emergency gilt purchases.

One possibility that might be more acceptable to markets would be to rewrite the investment rule. There could be a requirement on government to invest a certain proportion of GDP (say, 3%) and fund it by borrowing. The supply-side benefits could be faster growth in potential output and higher tax revenue over the longer term, allowing the current deficit rule to be met.

Cut government expenditure

Politicians, especially in opposition, frequently claim that the solution is to cut out public-sector waste. This would allow public expenditure to be cut without cutting services. This, however, is harder than it might seem. There have been frequent efficiency drives in the public sector, but from 1919 to 2023 public-sector productivity fell by an average of 0.97% per year.

Causes include: chronic underinvestment in capital, resulting in outdated equipment and IT systems and crumbling estates; decades of underfunding that have left public services with crumbling estates, outdated equipment and insufficient IT systems; inconsistent, short-term government policy, with frequent changes in government priorities; bureaucratic systems relying on multiple legacy IT systems; workforce challenges, especially in health and social care, with high staff turnover, recruitment difficulties, and a lack of experienced staff.

The current government has launched a Public Sector Productivity Programme. This is a a cross-government initiative to improve productivity across public services. Departments are required to develop productivity plans to invest in schemes designed to achieve cost savings and improve outcomes in areas such as the NHS, police, and justice system. A £1.8 billion fund was announced in March 2024, to support public-sector productivity improvements and digital transformation. Part of this is to be invested in digital services and AI to improve efficiency. According to the ONS, total public-service productivity in the UK grew by 1.0% in the year to Q1 2025; healthcare productivity grew 2.7% over the same period. It remains to be seen whether this growth in productivity will be maintained. Pressure from the public, however, will mean that any gains are likely to be in terms of improved services rather than reduced government expenditure.

Increase taxes

This is always a controversial area. People want better public services but also reduced taxes – at least for themselves! Nevertheless, it is an option seriously being considered by the government. However, if it wants to avoid raising the rates of income tax, national insurance for employees and the self-employed, and VAT, its options are limited. It has also to consider the political ramifications of taking unpopular tax-raising measures. The following are possibilities:

Continue the freeze on income tax bands. They are currently frozen until April 2028. The extra revenue from extending the freeze until April 2030 would be around £7 billion. Although this may be politically more palatable than raising the rate of income tax, the revenue raised will be well short of the amount required and thus other measures will be required. Although some £40 billion will have been raised up to 2028 (which has already been factored in), as inflation falls, so the fiscal drag effect will fall: nominal incomes will need to rise less to achieve any given rise in real incomes.

Cutting tax relief for pensions. Currently, people get income tax relief at their marginal rate on pension contributions made by themselves and their employer up to £60 000 per year or 100% of their earnings, whichever is smaller. When people draw on their pension savings, they pay income tax at their marginal rate, even if the size of their savings has grown from capital gains, interest or dividends. Reducing the limits or restricting relief to the basic rate of tax could make a substantial contribution to increasing government revenue. In 2023/24, pension contribution relief cost the government £52 billion. Restricting relief to the basic rate or cutting the annual limit would make the relief less regressive. In such a case, when people draw on their pension savings, the income tax rate could be limited to the basic rate to avoid double taxation.

Raising the rate of inheritance tax (IHT) or reducing the threshold. Currently, estates worth more than £325 000 are taxed at a marginal rate of 40%. The threshold is frozen until 2029/30 and thus additional revenue will be received by the government as asset prices increase. If the rate is raised above 40%, perhaps in bands, or the threshold were lowered, then this will earn additional revenue. However, the amount will be relatively small compared to the predicted current deficit in 2029/30 of £41 billion. Total IHT revenue in 2022/23 was only 6.7 billion. Also, it is politically dangerous as people could claim that the government was penalising people who had saved in order to help the next generation, who are struggling with high rents or mortgages.

Increased taxes on business. The main rate of corporation tax was raised from 19% to 25% in April 2023 and the employers’ national insurance rate was raised from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold reduced from £9100 to £5000 per year in April 2025. There is little or no scope for raising business taxes without having significant disincentive effects on investment and employment. Also, there is the danger that raising rates might prompt companies to relocate abroad.

Raise fuel and/or other duties. Fuel duties raise approximately £24 billion. They are set to decline gradually with the shift to EVs and more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines. Fuel duty remained unchanged at 57.95p per litre from 2011 to 2022 and then was ‘temporarily’ cut to 52.95p. The rate of 52.95p is set to remain until at least 2026. There is clearly scope here to raise it, if only by the rate of inflation each year. Again, the main problem is a political one that drivers and the motor lobby generally will complain. Other duties include alcohol, tobacco/cigarettes/vaping, high-sugar beverages and gambling. Again, there is scope for raising these. There are two problems here. The first is that these duties are regressive, falling more heavily on poorer people. The second is that high duties can encourage illegal trade in these products.

Raising one of the three major taxes: income tax, employees’ national insurance and VAT. This will involve reneging on the government’s election promises. But perhaps it’s better to bite the bullet and do it sooner rather than later. Six European countries have VAT rates of 21%, three of 22%, three of 23%, two of 24%, four of 25%, one of 25.5% and one of 27%. Each one percentage point rise would raise about 9 billion. A one percentage point rise across all UK income tax rates would raise around £5.8 billion. As far as employees’ national insurance rates are concerned, the Conservative government reduced the main rate twice from 12% to 10% in January 2024 and from 10% to 8% in April 2024. The government could argue that raising it back to, say, 10% would still leave it lower than previously. A rise to 10% would raise around £11 billion.

Conclusion

The choices for the Chancellor are not easy. As the NIESR’s Economic Outlook puts it:

Simply put, the Chancellor cannot simultaneously meet her fiscal rules, fulfil spending commitments, and uphold manifesto promises to avoid tax rises for working people. At least one of these will need to be dropped – she faces an impossible trilemma.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Which of the options would you choose and why?
  2. Should the government introduce a wealth tax on people with wealth above, say, £2 million? If so, should it be a once-only tax or an annual tax?
  3. Research another country’s fiscal position and assess the choices their finance minister took.
  4. Look at a previous UK Budget from a few years ago and the forecasts on which the Budget decisions were made (search Budget [year] on the GOV.UK website). How accurate did the forecasts turn out to be? If the Chancellor then had known what would actually happen in the future, would their decisions have been any different and, if so, in what ways?
  5. Should fiscal decisions be based on forecasts for three of four years hence when those forecasts are likely to be unreliable?
  6. Should fiscal and monetary policy decisions be made totally separately from each other?