Posted on

‘Tariff is the most beautiful word.’ Not for economists!

In an interview with Joe Rogan for his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, just before the US election, Donald Trump stated that, “To me, the most beautiful word – and I’ve said this for the last couple of weeks – in the dictionary today and any is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything. It’s the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”

President-elect Trump has stated that he will impose tariffs on imports of 10% or 20%, with 60% and 100% tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, respectively. This protection for US industries, combined with lighter regulation, will, he claims, provide a stimulus to the economy and help create jobs. The revenues will also help to reduce America’s budget deficit.

But it is not that straightforward.

Problems with tariffs for the USA

Imposing tariffs is likely to reduce international trade. But international trade brings net benefits, which are distributed between the participants according to the terms of trade. This is the law of comparative advantage.

In the simple two-country case, the law states that, provided the opportunity costs of producing various goods differ between the two countries, both of them can gain from mutual trade if they specialise in producing (and exporting) those goods that have relatively low opportunity costs compared with the other country. The total production and consumption of the two countries will be higher.

So if the USA has a comparative advantage in various manufactured products and a trading partner has a comparative advantage in tropical food products, such as coffee or bananas, both can gain by specialisation and trade.

If tariffs are imposed and trade is thereby reduced between the USA and its trading partners, there will be a net loss, as production will switch from lower-cost production to higher-cost production. The higher costs of less efficient production in the USA will lead to higher prices for those goods than if they were imported.

At the same time, goods that are still imported will be more expensive as the price will include the tariff. Some of this may be borne by the importer, meaning that only part of the tariff is passed on to the consumer. The incidence of the tariff between consumer and importer will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. Nevertheless, imports will still be more expensive, allowing the domestically-produced substitutes to rise in price too, albeit probably by not so much. According to work by Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely for the Peterson Institute (see link in Articles below), Trump’s proposals to raise tariffs would cost the typical American household over $2600 a year.

The net effect will be a rise in inflation – at least temporarily. Yet one of Donald Trump’s pledges is to reduce inflation. Higher inflation will, in turn, encourage the Fed to raise interest rates, which will dampen investment and economic growth.

Donald Trump tends to behave transactionally rather than ideologically. He is probably hoping that a rapid introduction of tariffs will then give the USA a strong bargaining position with foreign countries to trade more fairly. He is also hoping that protecting US industries by the use of tariffs, especially when coupled with deregulation, will encourage greater investment and thereby faster growth.

Much will depend on how other countries respond. If they respond by raising tariffs on US exports, any gain to industries from protection from imports will be offset by a loss to exporters.

A trade war, with higher tariffs, will lead to a net loss in global GDP. It is a negative sum game. In such a ‘game’, it is possible for one ‘player’ (country) to gain, but the loss to the other players (countries) will be greater than that gain.

Donald Trump is hoping that by ‘winning’ such a game, the USA could still come out better off. But the gain from higher investment, output and employment in the protected industries would have to outweigh the losses to exporting industries and from higher import prices.

The first Trump administration (2017–21), as part of its ‘America First’ programme, imposed large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and on steel and aluminium from across the world. There was wide-scale retaliation by other countries with tariffs imposed on a range of US exports. There was a net loss to world income, including US GDP.

Problems with US tariffs for the rest of the world

The imposition of tariffs by the USA will have considerable effects on other countries. The higher the tariffs and the more that countries rely on exports to the USA, the bigger will the effect be. China and Mexico are likely to be the biggest losers as they face the highest tariffs and the USA is a major customer. In 2023, US imports from China were worth $427bn, while US exports to China were worth just $148bn – only 34.6% of the value of imports. The percentage is estimated to be even lower for 2024 at around 32%. In 2023, China’s exports to the USA accounted for 12.6% of its total exports; Mexico’s exports to the USA accounted for 82.7% of its total exports.

It is possible that higher tariffs could be extended beyond China to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Indonesia. These countries typically run trade surpluses with the USA. Also, many of the products from these countries include Chinese components.

As far as the UK is concerned, the proposed tariffs would cause significant falls in trade. According to research by Nicolò Tamberi at the University of Sussex (see link below in Articles):

The UK’s exports to the world could fall by £22 billion (–2.6%) and imports by £1.4 (–0.16%), with significant variations across sectors. Some sectors, like fishing and petroleum, are particularly hard-hit due to their high sensitivity to tariff changes, while others, such as textiles, benefit from trade diversion as the US shifts demand away from China.

Other badly affected sectors would include mining, pharmaceuticals, finance and insurance, and business services. The overall effect, according to the research, would be to reduce UK output by just under 1%.

Countries are likely to respond to US tariffs by imposing their own tariffs on US imports. World Trade Organization rules permit the use of retaliatory tariffs equivalent to those imposed by the USA. The more aggressive the resulting trade war, the bigger would be the fall in world trade and GDP.

The EU is planning to negotiate with Trump to avoid a trade war, but officials are preparing the details of retaliatory measures should the future Trump administration impose the threatened tariffs. The EU response is likely to be strong.

Articles

Questions

  1. Explain why, according to the law of comparative advantage, all countries can gain from trade.
  2. In what ways may the imposition of tariffs benefit particular sections of an economy?
  3. Is it in countries’ interests to retaliate if the USA imposes tariffs on their exports to the USA?
  4. Why is a trade war a ‘negative sum game’?
  5. Should the UK align with the EU in resisting President-elect Trump’s trade policy or should it seek independently to make a free-trade deal with the USA? is it possible to do both?
  6. What should China do in response to US threats to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports to the USA?
Posted on

France’s rising risk premium: converging with southern Europe

On 25 October 2024, Moody’s, one of the major credit ratings agencies, announced that it was downgrading France’s economic outlook to negative. This was its first downgrading of France since 2012. It followed a similar revision by Fitch’s, another ratings agency, on 11 October.

While Fitch’s announcement did not have a significant impact on the yields of French government bonds, expectations around Moody’s did. In the week preceding the announcement, the net increases in the yield on generic 10-year government debt was approximately 9 basis points (0.09 percentage points). On the day itself, the yield rose by approximately 5.6 basis points (0.056 percentage points).

The yield rose further throughout the rest of October, finishing nearly 0.25 percentage points above its level at the start of the month. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, these increases are part of a longer-term trend of rising yields for French government debt (click here for a PowerPoint).

The yield on 10-year French government debt began 2024 at 2.56% and had an upward trend for the first half of the year. The yield peaked at 3.34% on 1 July. It then fell back below 3% for a while. The negative economic outlook then pushed yields back above 3% and they finished October at 3.12%, half a percentage point above the level at the start of the year. This represents a significant increase in borrowing costs for the French government.

In this blog, we will explain why the changes in France’s economic outlook translate into increases in yields for French government bonds. We will also analyse why yields have increased and examine the prospects for the markets in French government bonds.

Pricing signals of bond yields

A bond is a tradable debt instrument issued by governments to finance budget deficits – the difference between tax receipts and spending. Like any financial instruments, investment in bonds involves a commitment of funds today in anticipation of interest payments through time as compensation, with a repayment of its redemption value on the date the bond matures.

Since the cash flows associated with holding a bond occur at different points in time, discounted cash flow analysis is used to determine its value. This gives the present value of the cash flows discounted at the appropriate expected rate of return. In equilibrium this will be equal to the bond’s market price, as the following equation shows.

Where:
    P = the equilibrium price of the bond
    C = cash coupon payments
    M = redemption value at maturity
    r = yield (expected rate of return in equilibrium.

Interest payments tend to be fixed at the time a bond is issued and reflect investors’ expected rate of return, expressed as the yield in bond markets. This is determined by prevailing interest rates and perceived risk. Over time, changes in interest rates and perceptions of risk will change the expected rate of return (yield), which will, in turn, change the present value of the cash flows, and hence fundamental value.

Prices move in response to changes in fundamental value and since this happens frequently, this means that prices change a lot. For bonds, as the coupon payments (C each year and the redemption price () are fixed, the only factor that can change is the expected rate of return (yield). This is reflected in the observed yield at each price.

If the expected rate of return rises, this increases the discount rate applied to future cash flows and reduces their present value. At the current price, the fixed coupon is not sufficient to compensate investors. So, investors sell the bonds and price falls until it reaches a point where the yield offered is equal to that required. The reverse happens if the expected rate of return falls.

The significant risk associated with bonds is credit default risk – the risk that the debt will not be repaid. The potential for credit default is a significant influence of the compensation investors require for holding debt instruments like bonds (ceteris paribus). An increase in expected credit default risk will increase the expected return (compensation). This will be reflected in a lower price and higher yield.

Normally, with the bonds issued by high-income countries, such as those in Europe and North America, the risk of default is extremely low. However, if a country’s annual deficits or accumulated debt increase to what markets consider to be unsustainable levels, the perceived risk of default may rise. Countries’ levels of risk are rated by international ratings agencies, such as Moody’s and Fitch. Investors pay a lot of attention to the information provided by such agencies.

Moody’s downgrade in its economic outlook for France from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’ indicated weak economic performance and higher credit default risk. This revision rippled through bond markets as investors adjusted their views of the country’s economic risk. The rise in yields observed is a signal that bond investors perceive higher credit default risk associated with French government debt and are demanding a higher rates of return as compensation.

Why has France’s credit default risk premium risen now?

As we have seen, credit default risk is not normally considered a significant issue for sovereign borrowers like France. Some of the issue around perceived credit default risk for the French government relate to the size of the French government’s deficit and the projections for it. Following a spike in borrowing associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the annual government budget deficit and the overall level of debt as percentages of GDP have remained high. The annual deficit is projected to be 6% for 2024 and still 5% for 2025. The ratio of outstanding French government debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ballooned to 123% in 2020 and is still expected to be 115% by the end of 2025. France has been put on notice to reduce its debt towards the Eurozone limit of 60% of GDP.

Governments in France last achieved a balanced budget in 1974. They have run deficits ever since. Figure 2 illustrates the French government budget deficits from 1990 to 2023 (click here for a PowerPoint). The figure shows that France experienced deficits in the past similar to today’s. These, however, did not tend to worry bond markets too much.

So why are investors currently worried? This stems from France’s debt mountain and from concerns that the government will not be able to deal with it. Investors are concerned that both weak growth and increasingly volatile politics will thwart efforts to reduce debt levels.

Let’s take growth. Even by contemporary European standards, France’s growth prospects are anaemic. GDP is expected to grow by just 1.1% for 2024 and 1% for 2025. Both consumer and business confidence are low. None of this suggests a growth spurt soon which will boost the tax revenues of the French government sufficiently to address the deficit.

Further, political instability has grown due to the inconclusive parliamentary elections which Emmanuel Macron surprisingly called in July. No single political grouping has a majority and the President has appointed a Centrist Prime Minister, Michel Barnier (the former EU Brexit negotiator). His government is trying to pass a budget through the Assemblée Nationale involving a mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes which amount to savings of €60 billion ($66 billion). This is equivalent to 2% of GDP.

The parliamentary path of the budget bill is set to be torturous with both the left and right wing blocs in the Assemblée opposing most of the provisions. Debate in the Assemblée Nationale and Senate are expected to drag on into December, with the real prospect that the government may have to use presidential decree to pass the budget. Commentators argue that this will fuel further political chaos.

France looks more like Southern Europe

In the past, bond investors were more tolerant of France’s budget deficits. French government bonds were attractive options for investors wanting to hold euro-denominated bonds while avoiding riskier Southern European countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Since France has run persistent government deficits for a long time, it offered bond investors a more liquid market than more fiscally-parsimonious Northern European neighbours, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Consequently, France’s debt instruments offered a slight risk premium on the yields for those countries.

However, that has changed. France’s credit default risk premium is rising to levels comparable to its Southern neighbours. On 26 September 2024, the yield on generic French government 10-year debt rose above its Spanish equivalent for the first time since 2008.

As Figure 3 illustrates, this was the culmination of a trend evident throughout 2024, with the difference in yields between the two declining steadily (click here for a PowerPoint). At the start of the year, the yield on Spanish debt offered a 40 basis points premium over the French equivalent. By October, the yield on Spanish debt was consistently below that of French debt. All of this is due to bond investors’ rising expectations about France’s credit default risk. Now, France’s borrowing costs are not only above Spain, but also closer to those of Greece and Italy than of Germany.

Strikingly, Spain’s budget deficit was 3.5% in 2023 and is expected to narrow to 2.6% by 2025. The percentage of total debt to GDP is 104% and falling. Moreover, following Spain’s inconclusive election in 2023, the caretaker government put forward budgetary plans involving fiscal tightening without the need for legislation. This avoided the political wrangling France is facing.

For France, these developments raise the prospect of yields rising further as bond investors now see alternatives to French government debt in the form of Spain’s. This country have already undertaken the painful fiscal adjustments that France seems incapable of completing.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. What is credit default risk?
  2. Explain why higher credit default risk is associated with higher yields on France’s government debt.
  3. Why would low economic growth worsen the government’s budget deficit?
  4. Why would political instability increase credit default risk?
  5. What has happened to investors’ perceptions of the risk associated with French government debt relative to Spain’s?
  6. How has this manifested itself in the relative yields of the two countries’ government debt?
Posted on

Raising the minimum wage: its effects on poverty and employment

The first Budget of the new UK Labour government was announced on 30 October 2024. It contained a number of measures that will help to tackle inequality. These include extra spending on health and education. This will benefit households on lower incomes the most as a percentage of net income. Increases in tax, by contrast, will be paid predominantly by those on higher incomes. The Chart opposite (taken from the Budget Report) illustrates this. It shows that the poorest 10% will benefit from the largest percentage gain, while the richest 10% will be the only decile that loses.

But one of the major ways of tackling inequality and poverty was raising the minimum wage. The so-called ‘National Living Wage (NLW)’, paid to those aged 21 and over, will rise in April by 6.7% – from £11.44 to £12.41 per hour. The minimum wage paid to those aged 18 to 20 will rise 16.3% from £8.60 to £10.00 and for 16 and 17 year-olds and apprentices it will rise £18% from £6.40 to £7.55.

It has been an objective of governments for several years to relate the minimum wage to the median wage. In 2015, the Conservative Government set a target of raising the minimum wage rate to 60 per cent of median hourly earnings by 2020. When that target was hit a new one was set to reach two-thirds of median hourly earnings by 2024.

The Labour government has set a new remit for the minimum wage (NLW). There are two floors. The first is the previously agreed one, that the NLW should be at least two-thirds of median hourly earnings; the second is that it should fully compensate for cost of living rises and for expected inflation up to March 2026. The new rate of £12.41 will meet both criteria. According to the Low Pay Commission, ‘Wages have risen faster than inflation over the past 12 months, and are forecast to continue to do so up to March 2026’. This makes the first floor the dominant one: meeting the first floor automatically meets the second.

How effective is the minimum wage in reducing poverty and inequality?

Figure 1 shows the growth in minimum wage rates since their introduction in 1999. The figures are real figures (i.e. after taking into account CPI inflation) and are expressed as an index, with 1999 = 100. The chart also shows the growth in real median hourly pay. (Click here for a Powerpoint.)

As you can see, the growth in real minimum wage rates has considerably exceeded the growth in real median hourly pay. This has had a substantial effect on raising the incomes of the poorest workers and thereby has helped to reduce poverty and inequality.

The UK minimum wage compares relatively favourably with other high-income economies. Figure 2 shows minimum wage rates in 12 high-income countries in 2023 – the latest year for which data are available. (Click here for a PowerPoint.) The red bars (striped) show hourly minimum wage rates in US dollars at purchasing-power parity (PPP) rates. PPP rates correct current exchange rates to reflect the purchasing power of each country’s currency. The blue bars (plain) show minimum wage rates as a percentage of the median wage rate. In 2023 the UK had the fourth highest minimum wage of the 12 countries on this measure (59.6%). As we have seen above, the 2025 rate is expected to be 2/3 of the median rate.

Minimum wages are just one mechanism for reducing poverty and inequality. Others include the use of the tax and benefit system to redistribute incomes. The direct provision of services, such as health, education and housing at affordable rents can make a significant difference and, as we have seen, have been a major focus of the October 2024 Budget.

The government has been criticised, however, for not removing the two-child limit to extra benefits in Universal Credit (introduced in 2017). The cap clearly disadvantages poor families with more than two children. What is more, for workers on Universal Credit, more than half of the gains from the higher minimum wages will lost because they will result in lower benefit entitlement. Also the freeze in (nominal) personal income tax allowances will mean more poor people will pay tax even with no rise in real incomes.

Effects on employment: analysis

A worry about raising the minimum wage rate is that it could reduce employment in firms already paying the minimum wage and thus facing a wage rise.

In the case of a firm operating in competitive labour and goods markets, the demand for low-skilled workers is relatively wage sensitive. Any rise in wage rates, and hence prices, by this firm alone would lead to a large fall in sales and hence in employment.

This is illustrated in Figure 3 (click here for a PowerPoint). Assume that the minimum wage is initially the equilibrium wage rate We. Now assume that the minimum wage is raised to Wmin. This will cause a surplus of labour (i.e. unemployment) of Q3 – Q2. Labour supply rises from Q1 to Q3 and the demand for labour falls from Q1 to Q2.

But, given that all firms face the minimum wage, individual employers are more able to pass on higher wages in higher prices, knowing that their competitors are doing the same. The quantity of labour demanded in any given market will not fall so much – the demand is less wage elastic; and the quantity of labour supplied in any given market will rise less – the supply is less wage elastic. Any unemployment will be less than that illustrated in Figure 3. If, at the same time, the economy expands so that the demand-for-labour curve shifts to the right, there may be no unemployment at all.

When employers have a degree of monopsony power, it is not even certain that they would want to reduce employment. This is illustrated in Figure 4: click here for a PowerPoint (you can skip this section if you are not familiar with the analysis).

Assume initially that there is no minimum wage. The supply of labour to the monopsony employer is given by curve SL1, which is also the average cost of labour ACL1. A higher employment by the firm will drive up the wage; a lower employment will drive it down. This gives a marginal cost of labour curve of MCL1. Profit-maximising employment will be Q1, where the marginal cost of labour equals the marginal revenue product of labour (MRPL). The wage, given by the SL1 (=ACL1) line will be W1.

Now assume that there is a minimum wage. Assume also that the initial minimum wage is at or below W1. The profit-maximising employment is thus Q1 at a wage rate of W1.

The minimum wage can be be raised as high as W2 and the firm will still want to employ as many workers as at W1. The point is that the firm can no longer drive down the wage rate by employing fewer workers, and so the ACL1 curve becomes horizontal at the new minimum wage and hence will be the same as the MCL curve (MCL2 = ACL2). Profit-maximising employment will be where the MRPL curve equals this horizontal MCL curve. The incentive to cut its workforce, therefore, has been removed.

Again, if we extend the analysis to the whole economy, a rise in the minimum wage will be partly passed on in higher prices or stimulate employers to increase labour productivity. The effect will be to shift the (MRPL) curve upwards to the right, thereby allowing the firm to pass on higher wages and reducing any incentive to reduce employment.

Effects on employment: evidence

There is little evidence that raising the minimum wage in stages will create unemployment, although it may cause some redeployment. In the Low Pay Commission’s 2019 report, 20 years of the National Minimum Wage (see link below), it stated that since 2000 it had commissioned more than 30 research projects looking at the NMW’s effects on hours and employment and had found no strong evidence of negative effects. Employers had adjusted to minimum wages in various ways. These included reducing profits, increasing prices and restructuring their business and workforce.

Along with our commissioned work, other economists have examined the employment effects of the NMW in the UK and have for the most part found no impact. This is consistent with international evidence suggesting that carefully set minimum wages do not have noticeable employment effects. While some jobs may be lost following a minimum wage increase, increasing employment elsewhere offsets this. (p.20)

There is general agreement, however, that a very large increase in minimum wages will impact on employment. This, however, should not be relevant to the rise in the NLW from £11.44 to £12.41 per hour in April 2025, which represents a real rise of around 4.5%. This at worst should have only a modest effect on employment and could be offset by economic growth.

What, however, has concerned commentators more is the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions (NICs) that were announced in the Budget. In April 2025, the rate will increase from 13.8% to 15%. Employers’ NICs are paid for each employee on all wages above a certain annual threshold. This threshold will fall in April from £9100 to £5000. So the cost to an employer of an employee earning £38 000 per annum in 2024/25 would be £38 000 + ((£38 000 – £9100) × 0.138) = £41 988.20. For the year 2025/26 it will rise to £38 000 + ((£38 000 – £5000) × 0.15) = £42 950. This is a rise of 2.29%. (Note that £38 000 will be approximately the median wage in 2025/26.)

However, for employees on the new minimum wage, the percentage rise in employer NICs will be somewhat higher. A person on the new NLW of £12.41, working 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year (assuming paid holidays), will earn an annual wage of £25 812.80. Under the old employer NIC rates, the employer would have paid (£25 812.80 + (£25 812.80 – £9100) × 0.138) = £28 119.17. For the year 2025/26, it will rise to £25 812.80 + ((£25 812.80 – £5000) × 0.15) = £28 934.72. This is a rise of 2.90%.

This larger percentage rise in employers’ wage costs for people on minimum wages than those on median wages, when combined with the rise in the NLW, could have an impact on the employment of those on minimum wages. Whether it does or not will depend on how rapid growth is and how much employers can absorb the extra costs through greater productivity and/or passing on the costs to their customers.

Articles

UK Government reports and information

Data

Questions

  1. How is the October 2024 Budget likely to affect the distribution of income?
  2. What are the benefits and limitations of statutory minimum wages in reducing (a) poverty and (b) inequality?
  3. Under what circumstances will a rise in the minimum wage lead or not lead to an increase in unemployment?
  4. Find out what is meant by the UK Real Living Wage (RLW) and distinguish it from the UK National Living Wage (NLW). Why is the RLW higher?
  5. Why is the median wage rather than the mean wage used in setting the NLW?
Posted on

UK banking regulation: ring-fencing revisited

The UK government announced on 14 October 2024 in a ministerial statement that it intended to raise the threshold for the ring-fencing (separation) of retail and investment banking activities of large UK-based banks. These banks are known as ‘systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs)’, which are currently defined as those with more than £25bn of core retail deposits. Under the new regulations, the threshold would rise from £25bn to £35bn.

Ring-fencing is the separation of one set of banking services from another. This separation can be geographical or functional. The UK adopted the latter approach, where ring-fencing is the separation of core retail banking services, such as taking deposits, making payments and granting loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from investment banking and international operations. The intention of ring-fencing was to prevent contagion – to protect essential retail banking services from the risks involved in investment banking activities.

Reducing regulation to increase competition

Raising the limit is intended to facilitate greater competition in the retail banking sector. In recent years, US banks, such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, have been expanding their depositor base in the UK under their respective brands – Chase UK and Marcus.

These relatively small UK subsidiaries were not ring-fenced from their wider investment banking operations as their retail deposits were under (but not far under) the £25bn limit. However, this restricted their ability to increase market share further without bearing the additional regulatory burden associated with ring-fencing that much larger incumbents face. Raising the threshold would allow them to expand to the higher limit without the regulatory burden.

The proposals are part of a broader package of reforms aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on UK-based banks. The hope is that this will stimulate greater lending to SMEs to boost investment and productivity.

The proposals also include a new ‘secondary’ threshold. This will exempt banks providing primarily retail banking services from the rules governing the provision of investment banking accounts. This exemption will apply as long as their investment banking is less than 10% of their tier 1 capital. (Tier 1 capital is currently the buffer which banks are required to retain in case of a crisis.) The changes were the outcome of a review conducted in 2022 but had not been implemented by the previous government.

The announcement has sparked a debate about ring-fencing, with some commentators calling for it to be removed altogether. Therefore, it is timely to revisit the rationale for ring-fencing. This blog examines what ring-fencing is and why it was introduced, and explains the associated economic costs and benefits.

Why was ring-fencing introduced?

Ring-fencing was recommended by the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB) in 2011 (see link below) and implemented through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act of 2013. The proposed separation of core retail banking services from investment banking were intended to address issues in banks which arose during the global financial crisis and which required substantial taxpayer bailouts. (See the 2011 blog, Taking the gambling out of high street banking (update).)

Following deregulation and liberalisation of financial services in the 1980s, many UK banks had extended their operations so that they combined domestic retail operations with substantial investment and international operations. The intention was to open up all dimensions of financial services to greater competition and allow banks to exploit economies of scope between retail and investment banking.

However, the risks associated with these services are very different but, in the period before the financial crisis, were provided alongside one another within banking groups.

One significant risk which was not fully recognised at the time was contagion – problems in one dimension of a bank’s activity could severely compromise its ability to provide services in other areas. This is what happened during the financial crisis. Many of the UK banks’ investment operations had made significant investments in off-balance sheet securitised debt instruments – CDOs being the most famous example. (See the 2018 blog, Lehman Brothers: have we learned the lessons 10 years on?.)

When that market crashed in 2007, several UK-based banks incurred significant losses, as did other banks around the world. Given their thin equity buffers and the inability to borrow due to a credit crunch, such banks found it impossible to bear these losses.

The UK government had to step in to save these institutions from failing. If it had not, there would have been significant economic and social costs associated with their inability to provide core retail banking functions. (See the 2017 blog, Ten years on.)

The Independent Commission proposed that ‘the risks inevitably associated with banking have to sit somewhere, and it should not be with taxpayers. Nor do ordinary depositors have the incentive (given deposit insurance to guard against runs) or the practical ability to monitor or bear those risks’ (p.9). Unstructured banks, with no separation of retail from investment activities, increase the potential for both of these stakeholder groups to bear the risks of investment banking.

Structural separation of retail and investment banking addresses this problem. First, separation should make it easier and less costly to resolve problems for banks that get into trouble, avoiding the need for taxpayer bailouts. Second, structural separation should help to insulate retail banking from external financial shocks, ensuring that customer deposits and essential banking services are protected.

Problems of ring-fencing

Ring-fencing has been subject to criticism, however, which has led to calls for it to be scrapped.

It must be noted that most of the criticism comes from banks themselves. They state that it required significant operational restructuring by UK banks subject to the regulatory framework which was complex and costly.

In addition, segregating activities can lead to inefficiencies, as banks may not be able to take full advantage of economies of scope between investment and retail banking. Furthermore, ring-fencing could lead to a misallocation of capital, where resources are trapped in one part of the bank and cannot be used to invest in other areas, potentially increasing the risks of the specific areas.

Assessing the new proposals

It is argued that the increased threshold proposed by the authorities may put UK institutions at a competitive disadvantage to outside entrants that are building market share from a low base. Smaller entrants do not have to engage in the costly restructuring that the larger UK incumbents have. They can exploit scope economies and capital mobility within their international businesses to cross-subsidise their retail services in the UK which incumbents with larger deposit-bases are not able to.

However, the UK market for retail banking has significant barriers to entry. Following the acquisition of Virgin Money by Nationwide, only six banking groups in the UK meet the current threshold (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group, Santander UK and TSB). Indeed, all of those have deposits well above the proposed £35bn threshold. Consequently, raising the threshold should not add significant compliance and efficiency costs, while the potential benefits of greater competition for depositors and SMEs could be a substantial boost to investment and productivity. Furthermore, if the new US entrants do suffer problems, it will not be UK taxpayers who will be liable.

Have we been here before?

In many ways, ring-fencing is a throwback to a previous age of regulation.

One of the most famous Acts of Congress relating to finance and financial markets in the USA is the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The Act was passed in the aftermath of the 1929 Wall Street crash and the onset of the Great Depression in the USA. That witnessed significant bank failures across the country and problems were traced back to significant losses made by banks in their lending to investors during the speculative frenzy that preceded the stock market crash of 1929.

To prevent a repeat of the contagion and ensure financial stability, Glass-Steagall legislated to separate retail banks and investment banks.

In the UK, such separation had long existed due to the historical restrictions placed on investment banks operating in the City of London. In the late 20th century, the arguments for separation became outweighed by arguments for the liberalisation of markets to improve efficiency and competition in financial services. Banking was increasingly deregulated and separation disappeared as retail banks increasingly engaged in investment activities.

That cycle of deregulation reached its nadir in 2007 with the international financial crisis. The need to bail out banks made it clear that the supposed synergies between investment and retail banking were no compensation for the high costs of contagion in the financial system.

Regulators must be wary of calls for the removal of ring-fencing. Sir John Vickers (chairman of the independent commission on banking) highlighted the need to protect depositors, and more importantly taxpayers, from risks in banking. It is the banks that should bear the risks and manage them accordingly. Ultimately, it is up to the banks to do that better.

Articles

Bank annual reports

Access these annual reports to check the deposit base of these UK banks:

Information

Report

  • Final Report: Recommendations

    • The Independent Commission on Banking, Sir John Vickers (Chair), Clare Spottiswoode, Martin Taylor, Bill Winters and Martin Wolf (September 2011)

Questions

  1. How did the structure of UK banks cause contagion risk in the period before the global financial crisis?
  2. How does ring-fencing aim to address this and protect depositors and taxpayers?
  3. Use the links to the annual reports of the covered banks to assess the extent of deposits held by the institutions in 2023. How far above the proposed buffer do the banks sit?
  4. Use your answer to 3) and economic concepts to analyse the impact on competition in the UK market for retail deposits of raising the threshold.
  5. What are the risks for financial stability of raising the threshold?
Posted on

Crude oil – a volatile market

The market for crude oil is usually a volatile one. Indeed, in the last few months, the market has seen prices rise and fall due to various supply and demand influences. Crude oil is coined the ‘King of Commodities’ due to the impact it has on consumers, producers and both the micro and macro economy. The price of crude oil affects everything from the cost of producing plastics, transportation, and food at the supermarket.

This makes the market for crude oil an economic powerhouse which is closely watched by businesses, traders, and governments. To gain a full understanding of the movements in this market, it is important to identify how demand and supply affect the price of crude oil.

What influences the demand and supply of crude oil?

The law of demand and supply states that if demand increases, prices will rise, and if supply increases, prices will fall. This is exactly what happens in the market for crude oil. The consumer side of the market consists of various companies and hundreds of millions of people. The producer side of the market is made up of oil-producing countries. Collectively, both consumers and producers influence the market price.

However, the demand and supply of crude oil, and therefore the price, is also affected by global economic conditions and geopolitical tensions. What happens in the world impacts the price of oil, especially since a large proportion of the world’s biggest oil producers are in politically unstable areas.

Over the past five years, global events have had a major impact on the price of oil. The economic conditions created by the impact of the COVID pandemic saw prices plummet from around $55 per barrel just before the pandemic in February 2020 to around $15 per barrel in April 2020. By mid-2021 they had recovered to around $75 per barrel. Then, in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the price surged to reach $133 in June 2022. More recently, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and concerns about China’s economic outlook have intensified concerns about the future direction of the market. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

Geopolitical tensions

In the first week of October 2024, the price of crude oil rose by almost 10% to around $78 per barrel as the conflict in the Middle East intensified. It unfortunately comes at a time when many countries are starting to recover from the rise in oil prices caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Any increase in prices will affect the price that consumers pay to fill up their vehicles with fuel, just when prices of diesel and petrol had reached their lowest level for three years.

The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has said that the Bank is monitoring developments in the Middle East ‘extremely closely’, as the conflict has the potential to have serious impacts in the UK. The Bank of England will therefore be watching for any movement in oil prices that could fuel inflation.

The main concerns stem from further escalation in the conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed armed group, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. If Israel decides to attack Iran’s oil sector, this is likely to cause a sharp rise in the price of oil. Iran is the world’s seventh largest oil exporter and exports over half of its production to China. If the oilfields of a medium-sized supplier, like Iran, were attacked, this could threaten general inflation in the UK, which could in turn influence any decision by the Bank of England to lower interest rates next month.

Supply deficits

This week (2nd week of October 2024) saw the price of crude oil surge above $81 per barrel to hit its highest level since August. This rise means that prices increased by 12% in a week. However, this surge in price also means that prices rose by almost 21% between the start September and the start of October alone. Yet it was only in early September when crude oil hit a year-to-date low, highlighting the volatility in the market.

As the Middle-East war enters a new and more energy-related phase, the loss of Iranian oil would leave the market in a supply deficit. The law of supply implies that such a deficit would lead to an increase in prices. This also comes at a time when the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve has also been depleted, causing further concerns about global oil supply.

However, the biggest and most significant impact would be a disruption to flows through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a relatively narrow channel at the east end of the Persian Gulf through which a huge amount of oil tanker traffic passes – about a third of total seaborne-traded oil. It is therefore known as the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. The risk that escalation could block the Strait of Hormuz could technically see a halt in about a fifth of the world’s oil supply. This would include exports from big Gulf producers, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Iraq. In a worst-case scenario of a full closure of the Strait, a barrel of oil could very quickly rise to well above $100.

Disruption to shipments would also lead to higher gas prices and therefore lead to a rise in household gas and electricity bills. As with oil, gas prices filter down supply chains, affecting the cost of virtually all goods, resulting in a further rise in the cost of living. With energy bills in the UK having already risen by 10% for this winter, an escalation to the conflict could see prices rise further still.

China’s economic outlook


Despite the concern for the future supply of oil, there is also a need to consider how the demand for oil could impact price changes in the market. The price of oil declined on 14 October 2024 in light of concerns over China’s struggling economy. As China is the world’s largest importer of crude oil, there are emerging fears about the potential limits on fuel demand. This fall in price reversed increases made the previous week as investors become concerned about worsening deflationary pressures in China.

Any reduced demand from China could indicate an oversupply of crude oil and therefore potential price declines. Official data from China reveal a sharp year-on-year drop in the producer price index of 2.8% – the fastest decline in six months. These disappointing results have stirred uncertainty about the Chinese government’s economic stimulus plans. Prices could fall further if there are continuing doubts about the government’s ability to implement effective fiscal measures to promote consumer spending and, in turn, economic growth.

As a result of the 2% price fall in oil prices on 14 October, OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) has lowered its 2024 and 2025 global oil demand growth. This negative news outweighed market concerns over the possibility that an Israeli response to Iran’s missile attack could disrupt oil production.

What is the future for oil prices?

It is expected that the market for oil will remain a volatile one. Indeed, the current uncertainties around the globe only highlight this. It is never a simple task to predict what will happen in a market that is influenced by so many global factors, and the current global landscape only adds to the complexity.

There’s a wide spectrum of predictions about what could come next in the market for crude oil. Given the changes in the first two weeks of October alone, supply and demand factors from separate parts of the globe have made the future of oil prices particularly uncertain. Callum Macpherson, head of commodities at Investec, stated in early October that ‘there is really no way of telling where we will be this time next week’ (see the first BBC News article linked below).

Despite the predominately negative outlook, this is all based on potential scenarios. Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at Capital Economics suggests that if the ‘worst-case scenario’ of further escalation in the Middle East conflict does not materialise, oil prices are likely to ‘ease back quite quickly’. Even if Iran’s supplies were disrupted, China could turn to Russia for its oil. Bain says that there is ‘more than enough capacity’ globally to cover the gap if Iranian production is lost. However, this does then raise the question of where the loyalty of Saudi Arabia, the world’s second largest oil producer, lies and whether it will increase or restrict further production.

What is certain is that the market for crude oil will continue to be a market that is closely observed. It doesn’t take much change in global activity for prices to move. Therefore, in the current political and macroeconomic environment, the coming weeks and months will be critical in determining oil prices and, in turn, their economic effects.

Articles

Questions

  1. Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate what has happened to oil prices in the main two scenarios:
    (a) Conflict in the Middle East;
    (b) Concerns about China’s economic performance.
  2. How are the price elasticities of demand and supply relevant to the size of any oil price change?
  3. What policy options do the governments have to deal with the potential of increasing energy prices?
  4. What are oil futures? What determines oil future prices?
  5. How does speculation affect oil prices?