With the UK economy already struggling, the atmosphere in the financial sector has just a bit moodier, as Moody’s have downgraded the credit rating of 12 financial firms in the UK, including Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland and Nationwide. The change in credit rating has emerged because of Moody’s belief that the UK government was less likely to support these firms if they fell into financial trouble. It was, however, emphasized that it did not “reflect a deterioration in the financial strength of the banking system.” The same can not be said for Portugal, who has similarly seen nine of their banks being downgraded due to ‘financial weakness’. George Osborne commented that it was down to the government no longer guaranteeing our largest banks, but he also said:
“I’m confident that British banks are well capitalised, they are liquid, they are not experiencing the kinds of problems that some of the banks in the eurozone are experiencing at the moment.”
Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland both saw falls in their shares following their downgraded credit rating. Other banks, including Barclays also saw their shares fall, despite not being downgraded. Perhaps another indication of the interdependence we now see across the world. In interviews, George Osborne has continued to say that he believes UK banks are secure and wants them to become more independent to try to protect taxpayer’s money in the event of a crisis. Moody’s explained its decision saying:
“Moody’s believes that the government is likely to continue to provide some level of support to systemically important financial institutions, which continue to incorporate up to three notches of uplift…However, it is more likely now to allow smaller institutions to fail if they become financially troubled. The downgrades do not reflect a deterioration in the financial strength of the banking system or that of the government.”
The above comment reflects Moody’s approach to downgrading UK banks – not all have seen the same credit rating cuts. RBS and Nationwide have gone down 2 notches, whilst Lloyds and Santander have only gone down by 1 notch. Markets across the world will continue to react to this development in the UK financial sector, so it is a story worth keeping up to date with. The following articles consider the Moody environment.
UK banks’ credit rating downgraded The Press Association (7/10/11)
UK financial firms downgraded by Moody’s rating agency BBC News (7/10/11)
Moody’s downgrades nine Portuguese banks Financial Times, Peter Wise (7/10/11)
Bank shares fall on Moody’s downgrade Telegraph, Harry Wilson (7/10/11)
Moody’s cuts credit rating on UK banks RBS and Lloyds Reuters, Sudip Kar-Gupta (7/10/11)
Moody’s downgrade: George Osborne says British banks are sound Guardian, Andrew Sparrow (7/10/11)
Whitehall fears new bail-out for RBS Financial Times, Patrick Jenkins (7/10/11)
Questions
- Do you think that Moody’s have over-reacted? Explain your answer.
- What factors would Moody’s have considered when determining whether to downgrade the credit rating of any given bank and by how much?
- Why did share prices of the affected firms fall following the downgrading? What does this suggest about the public’s confidence in the banks?
- Do you think it is the right move for the government to encourage UK banks to become more independent in a bid to protect taxpayer’s money should a crisis develop?
- How might this downgrading affect the performance of the UK economy for the rest of 2011? Explain your answer.
- What are the differences behind the downgrading of UK banks and Portuguese banks?
On several occasions in the past on this site we’ve examined proposals for a Tobin tax: see, for example: A ‘Robin Hood’ tax (Feb 2010), Tobin or not Tobin: the tax proposal that keeps reappearing (Dec 2009) and A Tobin tax – to be or not to be? (Aug 2009). A Tobin tax is a tax on trading in financial products, sometimes known as a ‘financial transactions tax’ (FTT). It could also be levied on trading in foreign currencies. It is considered in Economics (7th ed) (section 26.3) and Economics for Business (5th ed) (section 32.4).
The tax would be levied at a very low rate: somewhere between 0.01% and 0.5% and would be too small to affect trading in shares or other financial products for purposes of long-term investment. It would, however, dampen speculative trades that take advantage of tiny potential gains from very short-term price movements. Such trades account for huge financial flows between financial institutions around the world and tend to make markets more volatile. The short-term dealers are known as high-frequency traders (HFTs) and their activities now account for the majority of trading on exchanges. Most of these trades are by computers programmed to seek out minute gains and respond in milliseconds. And whilst they add to short-term liquidity for much of the time, this liquidity can suddenly dry up if HFTs become pessimistic.
The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, has announced that the Commission has adopted the idea of a financial transactions tax with the backing of Germany, France and other eurozone countries. This Tobin tax could be in operation by 2014. According to the Commission, it could raise some €57bn a year. Unlike earlier proposals for a Tobin tax (sometimes called the ‘Robin Hood tax’), the money raised would probably be used to reduce EU deficits, rather than being given in aid to developing countries.
The UK government has been highly critical of the proposal, arguing that, unless adopted world-wide, it would divert trade away from the City of London.
The following articles consider how such a tax would work and its potential advantages and disadvantages.
Theory inches ever closer to practice Guardian, Larry Elliott (28/9/11)
Osborne expected to oppose EU’s proposal for Tobin tax on banks Guardian, Jill Treanor (28/9/11)
Tobin tax could ‘destroy’ business models Accountancy Age, Jaimie Kaffash (30/9/11)
Tobin tax is likely, says banking chief Accountancy Age, Jaimie Kaffash (5/10/11)
Could a transactions tax be good for capitalism? BBC News, Robert Peston (3/10/11)
EU to propose tax on financial transactions BusinessDay (South Africa), Mariam Isa (5/10/11)
European politicians plot to block UK veto on ‘Tobin tax’ The Telegraph, Louise Armitstead (3/10/11)
Opinion Divided on EU Transaction Tax Tax-News, Ulrika Lomas (5/10/11)
Tobin taxes and audit reform: the blizzard from Brussels The Economist (1/10/11)
Questions
- What are HFTs and what impact do they have on the stability and liquidity of markets?
- Explain how a Tobin tax would work.
- What would be the potential advantages and disadvantages of the Tobin tax as proposed by the European Commission (the ‘financial transactions tax’)?
- Are financial markets efficient? Can a market be ‘excessively efficient’?
- How are ‘execute or cancel’ orders used by HFTs?
- Why do HFTs have an asymmetric information advantage?
- How does a financial transactions tax differ from the UK’s stamp duty reserve tax?
- Explain why the design of the stamp duty tax has prevented the flight of capital and trading from London. Could a Tobin tax be designed in such a way?
The National Minimum Wage is a rate applied to most workers in the UK and is their minimum hourly entitlement. For adults over the age of 21, it has recently been increased to £6.08 – 15p rise. Rises have also been seen for 18-20 year olds, 16 and 17 year olds and apprentices. Undoubtedly this is good news for workers receiving the minimum wage, but what does it mean for firms and national unemployment data?
Market wages are determined by the interaction of the demand and supply of labour and when they are in equilibrium, the only unemployment in the economy will be equilibrium unemployment, namely frictional or structural. However, when the wage rate is forced above the equilibrium wage rate, disequilibrium unemployment may develop. At a wage above the equilibrium the supply of labour will exceed the demand for labour and the excess is unemployment. Furthermore, firms are already facing difficult times with the economic climate: sales remain relatively low, but costs are still high. By increasing the national minimum wage, firms will face higher labour costs and this may discourage them from taking on new workers, but may also force them into laying off existing workers.
It is hoped that the size of the increases will help low paid workers, as costs of living continue to rise, but won’t cause firms to reduce their labour force. This is one reason, in particular, why the increase in the minimum wage for young workers is smaller than that for adults. Youth unemployment is relatively high and so it is essential that firms keep these workers on, despite their increased costs.
Although the TUC has welcomed the increases in the National Minimum Wage, saying they will benefit some 900,000 workers, the General Secretary of Unison has said that it isn’t high enough.
“The rise to £6.08 is a welcome cushion, but with the price of everyday essentials such as food, gas and electricity going up massively, it won’t lift enough working people out of the poverty trap.”
The following articles consider this issue.
Minimum wage rises by 15p to £6.08 an hour Telegraph (3/10/11)
Minimum wage up by 15p to £6.08 BBC News (1/10/11)
150,000 social care workers paid below legal minimum wage, research reveals Guardian, Shiv Malik (3/10/11)
Unions want £8 an hour minimum wage Press Association (1/10/11)
Hunderds of thousands of women to benefit as minimum wage hits the £6-an-hour mark for the first time Mail Online, Emma Reynolds (29/9/11)
Unions demand minimum wage of £8 an hour Telegraph (30/9/11)
Changes will benefit workers Sky News (2/10/11)
Questions
- Is the minimum wage an example of a price ceiling or a price floor?
- If the National Minimum Wage was imposed below the market equilibrium, what would be the effect?
- If imposed above the market wage rate, the National Minimum Wage may create unemployment. On which factors does the extent of unemployment depend?
- Why is it expected that female workers are likely to be the main ones to benefit? What does this say about gender inequality?
- Why does the General Secretary of Unison not believe the higher National Minimum Wage will help people out of the poverty trap?
- How will the National Minimum Wage affect a firm’s costs of production. Illustrate the likely impact on a diagram.
Through new legislation, the Ministry of Justice is aiming to make ‘offenders … take personal responsibility for their crimes’. The idea is to cut the wages of prisoners who work in communities, with the objective of raising £1m a year for victim support services. Any prisoner earning above £20 a week after tax, national insurance, child support payments etc, will face a 40% deduction in their pay. The money raised will be used to ‘repair the damage done by crime’ and begin to remove the burden from the general taxpayer. Critics, however, argue that this legislation will create a disincentive effect and discourage prisoners to work in the community before their release. It may also create additional bureaucracy for the external firms that employ them and at the end of the day may not even affect most prisoners, as many receive earnings, after all deductions, below £20 and so would not be liable. The following articles consider this policy.
Prisoners’ wages docked to fund victim support Associated Press (26/9/11)
Prisoners’ wages to help crime victims BBC News (26/9/11)
Prisoners to pay victims of crime The Press Association (26/9/11)
Victims handed £1m as prisoners suffer wage cut Independent, Nigel Morris (26/9/11)
Questions
- To what extent do you think the above policy is (a) equitable and (b) efficient?
- What might be the adverse effects of such legislation, from the point of view of both prisoners and the firms that employ them?
- What are the income and substitution effects in the context of a worker’s decision to work more or less hours?
- Using indifference analysis, explain how a fall in the prisoners’ net pay (due to this latest deduction) might have an impact on their desire to work more or less.
- Using your analysis from the previous question, explain the importance of the income and substitution effects.
Private Finance Initiatives were first introduced by the Conservatives in the early 1990s and they became a popular method of funding a variety of new public projects under New Labour. These included the building of prisons, new roads, hospitals, schools etc. The idea is that a private firm funds the cost and maintenance of the public sector project, whilst the public sector makes use of it and begins repaying the cost – something like a mortgage, with contracts lasting for about 30 years. As with a mortgage, you are saddled with the payments and interest for many years to come. This is the problem now facing many NHS trusts, who are finding it too expensive to repay the annual charges to the PFI contractors for building and servicing the hospitals.
Undoubtedly, there are short term benefits – the public sector gets a brand new hospital without having to raise the capital, but in the long term, it is the public who end up repaying more than the hospital (or the PFI project) is actually worth. Data suggests that a hospital in Bromley will cost the NHS £1.2 billion, which is some 10 times more than it is worth. Analysis by the Conservatives last year suggested that the 544 projects agreed under Labour will cost every working family in the UK about £15,000. This, compared with the original building cost of £3,000, is leading to claims that the PFI projects do not represent ‘value for money.’
More and more NHS trusts are contacting Andrew Lansley to say that the cost of financing the PFI project is undermining their ‘clinical and financial stability’. More than 60 hospitals and 12 million patients could be affected if these hospitals are forced to close. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley commented that:
‘Like the economy, Labour has brought some parts of the NHS to the brink of financial collapse.’
Labour, on the other hand, argue that the PFI contracts they created were essential at the time ‘to replace the crumbling and unsafe building left behind after years of Tory neglect.’ Although the public have benefited from the development of new hospitals, schools, roads etc, the long term costs may still be to come. Once the schemes are paid off, in 2049, over £70billion will have been paid to private contractors – significantly more than the cost and value of the projects and it will be the taxpayer who foots the bill. The following articles consider this controversial issue.
Labour’s PFI debt will cost five times as much, Conservatives claim The Telegraph, Rosa Prince (27/12/10)
Rising PFI costs ‘putting hospitals at risk’ BBC News (22/9/11)
Hospitals face collapse over PFIs The Press Association (22/9/11)
NHS hospitals crippled by PFI scheme The Telegraph, Robert Winnett (21/9/11)
60 hospitals face crisis over Labour’s PFI deals Mail Online, Jason Groves (22/9/11)
Private Finance Initiative: where did all go wrong? The Telegraph (22/9/11)
PFI schemes ‘taking NHS trusts to brink of financial collapse’ Guardian, Lizzy Davies (22/9/11)
Hospitals ‘struggling with NHS mortgage repayments’ BBC News, Nick Triggle (22/9/11)
Questions
- What is a PFI?
- Briefly outline the trade-off between the short term and the long term when it comes to Private Finance Initiatives.
- What are the arguments for a PFI? What are the arguments against PFIs?
- If PFIs had not been used to finance building projects, how do you think that would have impacted the current budget deficit?
- Is the cost of financing PFIs likely to have an adverse effect on the future prosperity of the UK economy?