The housing market has long been seen as a crucial element in stimulating the British economy. For this reason various incentives had been introduced to encourage people to buy properties. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)
One such strategy was the stamp duty holiday. Stamp Duty Land Tax is paid by the purchaser of a property against a purchase price and the cost of it will rise through each price band. The stamp duty holiday meant that first-time buyers were free from the 1% stamp duty on homes that cost under £250,000. However, this holiday is due to end from March 2012, as according to the government, the holiday has been ineffective. Indeed, in the Autumn statement documents, the government said:
‘The government is publishing analysis showing that the stamp duty land tax relief for first-time buyers has been ineffective in increasing the number of first time buyers entering the market.’
The government has said that instead it will focus on other strategies that provide better value for money. Such schemes include a mortgage guarantee scheme and the FirstBuy scheme launched last year, both of which aim to help those struggling to finance the purchase of their first properties.
According to the Land Registry, property prices have fallen by over 1% over the past year, so fewer properties will face the stamp duty land tax, but this data does little to instill confidence in the housing market being the stimulus that the economy needs. By stimulating the housing market, construction jobs should be created and this in turn should create a much needed multiplier effect helping to boost other sectors within the economy. The following articles consider this latest development.
Stamp duty rush boosts January valuations Mortgage Strategy, Tessa Norman (11/2/12)
New deals for buyers as stamp duty holiday ends BBC News, Susannah Streeter (11/2/12)
Autumn Statement: Stamp duty concession to end BBC News (29/11/11)
First-time buyers boost mortgage market activity FT Adviser, Michael Trudeau (9/2/12)
When shared ownership turns sour Guardian, Rupert Jones (10/2/12)
Questions
- Why does the housing market play such a crucial role in the economy?
- What is the multiplier effect? How will new jobs in the construction industry help other sectors in the economy?
- Why has the stamp duty holiday been ‘ineffective’ in stimulating the housing market?
- How have the other schemes introduced by the government created incentives in the housing market?
- Why have January valuations improved? Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate your explanation.
Last year, we felt the cost of the cold weather and whilst we haven’t seen such low temperatures this year, gas shortages are also emerging. Across Eastern Europe, temperatures have fallen well below -30ºC and so demand for gas has unsurprisingly increased.
Thanks to these low temperatures, Russian gas supplies are running low and several countries have seen their deliveries of gas fall. However, the Russian gas monopoly, Gazprom has said that supplies have not been cut and that it has been exporting more gas during these cold times. The blame, according to Alexander Medvedev (the Deputy CEO of Gazprom), lies with the Ukraine taking gas at a pace significantly above contracted levels. The following articles consider this issue.
Russia, Ukraine argue over gas as EU reports shortage Reuters (2/2/12)
Freezing Europe hit by Russian gas shortage BBC News (4/2/12)
Gazprom says ‘Perplexed’ by EU supply drop as Ukraine takes gas Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Anna Shiryaevskaya (3/2/12)
Gazprom cuts gas supplies amid cold snap Financial Times, Guy Chazan (3/2/12)
Gazprom ‘unable to pump extra gas to Europe’ Associated Press (4/2/12)
Questions
- Using a demand and supply diagram, illustrate what we would expect to see with a gas shortage.
- What has been the cause of this current gas shortage? Use a diagram to illustrate the causes.
- What would you expect to happen to prices following this gas shortage?
- Gazprom is said to be a monopoly: what are the characteristics of a monopoly?
- As there are other gas suppliers, how can Gazprom be said to be a monopolist?
In an earlier blog Energy profits margins up by over 700% we analysed the increasing pressure on many households as they saw their energy bills increase in price year on year. This helped the big six energy companies achieve a 700% rise in their profits.
However, it also sparked interest by the regulator Ofgem, which was looking to ensure that consumers found it easier to make price comparisons and create a more competitive market. One issue that Ofgem were looking into was how to make the energy sector more open to competition, given that the big six companies own the power stations and hence this acts as a barrier to the entry of new firms.
The latest announcements from some of the big energy companies will therefore come as a pleasant turn of events for Ofgem. On Wednesday January 11th 2012, EDF announced that it would be cutting its energy prices by 5% from 7th February in response to a fall in wholesale costs. Only a day later, Npower announced its plans to cut its tariffs by 5% from 1st February. British Gas cut its prices by 5% with immediate effect and SSE will reduce its gas prices by 4.5% from March 26th.
Is this a sign that the market is becoming more competitive thanks to Ofgem or is there another explanation? For the past 2 winters, temperatures have been consistently below freezing and hence demand for gas/electricity was at an all time high, speaking concerns of gas shortages. However, with the mild winter we are currently experiencing (I hope I haven’t jinxed it!) demand for heating etc has been significantly lower, which has reduced wholesale costs and the big six companies have begun to pass these savings on to their customers. Yet, despite this seemingly good news, are they being as ‘kind’ as we think? Most of the companies are cutting their prices by about 5%, yet wholesale prices fell by significantly more than that. Furthermore, over the past few years, customers have seen their tariffs increase significantly – by a lot more than 5%. To some extent, this confirms the criticism levelled at the energy sector – when costs rise, they are quick to pass on the full costs to their customers. But, when costs fall, they are slow to pass on only a fraction of their cost savings. The following articles consider this issue.
Npower will cut gas prices by 5% BBC News (13/1/12)
EDF cuts gas price by 5% Reuters, Karolin Schaps and Henning Gloystein (11/1/12)
British Gas readies push to promote price cut MarketingWeek, Lara O’Reilly (13/1/12)
British Gas cuts prices by 5% Independent (13/1/12)
Energy suppliers do battle in the war of modest price cuts The Telegraph, Emily Godsen (13/1/12)
British Gas and SSE follow EDF Energy price cut Financial Times, Guy Chazan and Sylvia Pfeifer (11/1/12)
British Gas cuts electricity prices, but keeps gas on hold Guardian, Hillary Osborne (12/1/12)
British gas and SSE announce price cuts (including video) BBC News (12/1/12)
More power firms cut energy tariffs The Press Association (12/1/12)
Questions
- In which market structure would you place the energy sector? Explain your answer.
- What is the role of Ofgem? What powers does it (and the other regulators have)?
- Using a demand and supply diagram to help you, explain why wholesale costs have fallen.
- Why have the energy companies only passed on about 5% of cost savings to their customers, despite falls in wholesale costs of significantly more than that?
- Do you think price wars are likely to break out in this sector? Are they in the interests of consumers?
- Why did energy prices increase so quickly last year and the year before? Use a diagram to help you.
With pressure on household incomes, many have had to forego spending on luxuries and travel is seen by many as just that – a luxury they can no longer afford. Add on to this some unexpected external shocks and it’s unsurprising to see a company such as Thomas Cook, the second largest holiday business in the world, in talks with banks. It provides some 19 million holidays per year, but has seen a relatively rapid deterioration in its finances.
Its debts total in September 2011 was some £900 million and the value of the company has declined significantly in recent times. However, the most notable decline has been since it emerged that Thomas Cook was in talks with its banks in preparation for tougher times to come. It is hoping to receive £100 million from a range of banks including HSBC and Lloyds, but on this news Thomas Cook share prices fell by some 75%. However, Thomas Cook has said that the company is simply requesting money as a cushion and that it is not in a desperate financial situation. As the Acting Chief Executive, Sam Weihagen said, ‘I think investors should have confidence in Thomas Cook’.
Many factors have contributed towards Thomas Cook’s current situation – volcanic ash clouds, political unrest and unkind weather, but also some internal strategic decisions, such as their continued focus on package holidays, despite the fact that data suggests 2 in 3 people that go to Spain (a popular package destination) are actually not on a typical package holiday. The key thing with travel is that it is very much based on confidence (as we have also seen with the banking sector). If confidence in a company declines, people stop booking holidays with them and so further financial issues are created. This issue is even more significant when a well known brand name, such as Thomas Cook is the company in trouble. Nothing else makes such great headlines as a well known brand in trouble. So, should holiday makers be concerned? The following articles consider the situation that Thomas Cook faces.
Thomas Cook makes it hard to see the funny side Telegraph, Alistair Osborne (22/11/11)
Thomas Cook dives on bank talks BBC News (22/11/11)
How Thomas Cook shares dive 75% on new of bank talks BBC News (22/11/11)
Thomas Cook reassures holiday makers after shares plunge Guardian, Simon Bowers and Patrick Collinson (22/11/11)
Thomas Cook risks customer exodus during bank talks after stock plunges Bloomberg, Armorel Kenna and David Altaner (23/11/11)
Fears for Thomas Cook after shares sink 75% Independent, James Thompson (23/11/11)
Thomas Cook shares crash after default warning Reuters, Matt Scuffham (22/11/11)
Questions
- Explain the reason why share prices have fallen for Thomas Cook. Use a diagram showing the demand and supply of shares to support your explanation.
- Distinguish between the internal and external factors that have contributed to Thomas Cook’s current position.
- Under which aspect of PEST and STEEPLE analysis would you place the above influences?
- In the Telegraph article, an industry source says: ‘In a business like this you need a very conservative capital structure because you don’t know what’s going to come and bite you.’ What is meant by ‘a very conservative capital structure’?
- What action can Thomas Cook take to try to improve its current financial position? Think about both costs and revenues.
- What type of good would you class a holiday as? Based on this, what sort of figure would you place on the income elasticity of demand for holidays?
- How likely do you think it is that other travel companies are also experiencing similar financial issues to Thomas Cook?
A weekly expense for most families is filling up their car(s) with petrol, but this activity is becoming increasingly expensive and is putting added pressure on lower and middle income families in particular. For those families on lower incomes, a tank of petrol represents a much larger percentage of their income than it does for a higher income household. Assuming that petrol for a month costs you £70 and your monthly income is £500, as a percentage of your income, a tank of petrol costs you 14%. Whereas, if your income is £900, the percentage falls to 7.7% and with a monthly take-home pay of £2000, the cost of a month’s petrol as a percentage of your income is just 3.5%. This is a stark indication of why those on lower incomes feel the burden of higher petrol prices (and indeed, higher prices for any essential items) more than other families.
The price of petrol will today be debated by MPs, following an e-petition signed by more than 100,000 people and having the support of more than 100 MPs. When in power, the Labour government proposed automatic fuel-tax increases, but these were scrapped by the Coalition. However, in January, the government plans to increase fuel duty by 3p a litre and further increases in prices are expected in August in line with inflation. This could mean that the price of unleaded petrol rises to over 1.40p per litre.
And it’s not just households that are feeling the squeeze. The situation described in the first paragraph is just as relevant to firms. The smaller firms, with lower turnover and profits are feeling the squeeze of higher petrol prices more than their larger counterparts. Any businesses that have to transport goods, whether to customers or from wholesalers to retailers etc, are seeing their costs rise, as a tank of petrol is requiring more and more money. To maintain profit margins, firms must pass these cost increases on to their customers in the form of higher prices. Alternatively, they keep prices as they were and take a hit on profitability. If prices rise, they lose customers and if prices are maintained, profitability suffers, which for some companies, already struggling due to the recession, may not be an option.
Mr. Halfon, the Tory MP whose motion launched the e-petition said that fuel prices were causing ‘immense difficulties’ and the Shadow Treasury Minister Owen Smith has said:
‘With our economic recovery choked off well before the recent eurozone crisis, we need action.’
With inflation at 5.2% (I’m writing an hour or so before new inflation data is released on 15/11/11), higher prices for many goods is putting pressure on households. This is possibly contributing towards sluggish growth, as households have less and less disposable income to spend on other goods, after they have purchased their essential items, such as groceries and petrol. A criticism leveled at oil companies is that they quickly pass on price rises, as the world price of oil increases, but do not pass on cuts in oil prices. The issues raised in the debate and how George Osborne and David Cameron respond, together with inflation data for the coming months, may play a crucial role in determining just how much a tank of petrol will cost in the new year.
MPs to debate motion calling for half in petrol prices BBC News (15/11/11)
Petrol price rise: David Cameron faces Commons revolt after No10 e-petition Guardian, Cherry Wilson (15/11/11)
David Cameron faces backbench rebellion over fuel price hike Telegraph, Rowena Mason (14/11/11)
Petrol prices may be slashed by Rs 2 per litre on November 16 The Economic Times (15/11/11)
Paying the price as fuel costs rise BBC News (15/11/10)
Oil barons the big winners from soaring pump prices, ONS figures reveal Daily Mirror, Graham Hiscott (15/11/11)
Scrap rise in petrol duty: 100 MPs demand Osborne abandon planned 3p increase Mail Online, Ray Massey and Tim Shipman (15/11/11)
Questions
- As the price of petrol rises, why do people continue to buy it? What does it suggest about the elasticity of this product?
- Why do higher prices affect lower income families more than higher income families?
- What are the arguments (a) for and (b) against George Osborne’s planned 3p rise in petrol duty?
- Do you think that higher prices are contributing towards sluggish growth? Why?
- What type of tax is imposed on petrol? Is it equitable? Is it efficient?
- Why can the oil companies pass price rises on to petrol stations, but delay passing on any price reductions? Is there a need for better regulation and more pressure on oil companies to change their behaviour?
