EU Budget – the effects of fiscal policy

| 20-02-2018 | treasuryXL |

Every year the EU raises money by applying a levy on member states that represents a percentage of their Gross National Income (GNI). The EU Budget operates on a 7 year plan and then an annual budget is proposed and agreed. The EU strives to use 94% of expenditure on policies and 6% on administrative costs. As with all budgets, there are 2 sides – income and expenditure. There are 4 main sources of income – traditional own resources, VAT (BTW) based resources, GNI based resources, and other resources. There are 6 main sources of expenditure – growth, natural resources, security and citizenship, foreign policy, administration, and compensations.

Furthermore, there are a number of correction mechanisms designed to rebalance excessive contributions by certain member states, including – the UK rebate, lump sum payments, and reduced VAT (BTW) call rates. On the expenditure side, Growth and natural resources – which include the common agricultural and fisheries policies – account for more than 90% of expenditure. Every country within the EU makes contributions and receives expenditure within their state from the EU. The difference represents the net contribution per country per year.

When a country pays a net contribution, the excess funds are redistributed within the EU to other member states. This payment to other member states is a fiscal transfer. Information relating to the sum of fiscal transfers used in this blog were sourced at – www.money-go-round.eu

This website shows gross payments, gross receipts and net balance per country per year from 1976. The top 5 net payers since 1976 have been Germany, France, the united Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands. These 5 countries have contributed a net balance of EUR 925 billion. Conversely, the top 5 net receivers since 1976 have been Greece, Spain, Poland, Portugal and Ireland. These 5 countries have received a net balance of EUR 410 billion. This is a redistribution of both income and wealth.

Classically, the objectives of redistribution of incomes are to increase economic stability and opportunity for the less wealthy members of society. This should lead to a society where financial wealth is more evenly divided, increasing the standard of living among the poorer members. Without this mechanism, there is more risk of economic crises and less harmony between citizens of different social classes. One of the main questions has always been how long and beneficial this transfer should be. There is a danger that some people become permanently dependent on the transfer and do not actually improve their own living standards – they are seen to consume more, but not to improve their standard of living.

So how does it look within the EU?

The country that has received the most from fiscal transfers has been Greece. They ascended to the EU (in its previous incarnation) in 1981. They have been a net receiver of the EU budget for every year since 1981. In total, they have received EUR 118 billion in transfers. What Greece ever did with all this money is the subject of many articles – but it does not appear that the money was used to raise the living standards of the poor or invest in the infrastructure of Greece.

And therein lies the major problem for the EU – the mechanism used for redistribution has had no long term beneficial effect on the economy. There is no system of checks and balances to control what is done with the money. The ECB published a report at the start of 2017 about household finance and consumption in the EU. Its findings were that disparity was growing within the EU. Other reports have highlighted that whilst eastern Europe has seen large rises in GDP per capita growth, this added wealth has not been distributed evenly among all residents.

The ideals of the EU are worthy and noble – their implementation and management however, are not creating the society that they dreamt and spoke about.

Next – can fiscal union work?

 

If you want more information please feel free to contact us via email [email protected]

Are public debts sustainable?

| 19-02-2018 | treasuryXL |

A few weeks ago the EU Commission released a report on debt sustainability within the EU. It provides an overview of the challenges faced by member countries over the short, medium and long term to meet the original convergence criteria – specifically, that existing Government debt is less than 60% of GDP. As with most Government related documents it is long – over 250 pages. A lot of attention is drawn to the Debt Sustainability Monitor (DSM) and the challenges faced to achieve the abovementioned criteria by 2032.

Any forecast is open to different interpretations, especially one that looks 15 years into the future. At the end of 2017, 15 of the 28 countries within the EU (in other words more than 50%) have Government debt that exceeded 60% of GDP. The average ratio for all 28 countries – on the basis of the sum of all Government debt and all GDP – is 83%. Let us focus on those 15 countries who, currently, do not meet the criteria. The figures for this article have been taken from the following website – debtclocks.eu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This shows the countries – ranked by the current Debt to GDP ratios – from high to low. 3 countries have been highlighted in yellow as their figures have been originally shown in their own currencies. For the sake of comparison these figures have been converted into EUR.

Assumptions

  • The current debt will remain constant for the next 15 years. Debt that falls due for redemption is rolled over – no new additional debt is assumed.
  • The criteria in 2032 is that the debt is 60% of the GDP at the end of 2032
  • The current debt is assumed to be 60% of the GDP at the end of 2032
  • Projected GDP at the end of 2032 is adjusted so that it is a factor of 1.67 larger than the debt
  • A constant annual growth rate is determined whereby the existing GDP at the end of 2017 will constantly grow to equal the expected GDP at the end of 2032.

Results

The top 7 countries have debt ratios around 100% or higher of GDP at the end of 2017. The constant annual growth rates that they would have to achieve under the scenario shown above are all greater than 3% per annum.

Annual growth rate since 1996 for the EU have averaged 1.7% – before the financial crisis there was an annual growth of 2.5%. For the last 10 years since the crisis, the average annual growth rate within the whole EU is just 0.8%. Even in 2017, the growth was just 2.5% – back at the same level as before the crisis. The data for this part came from tradingeconomics.com

It would be appear to be presumptuous to expect future annual GDP growth to consistently exceed the current long term trend. Of course this is a scenario relying on only 1 factor – namely growth in GDP to meet the 60% criteria – whilst ignoring any other possible factors.

Conclusion

As constant growth, as shown above is, not realistic, then other factors will have to come into play if the long term scenario relating to debt criteria is to be achieved. If not through growth, then either through increases in Government receipts (more taxes or selling of national assets) or decreases in Government expenditure (less subsidies, pensions, smaller investments).

Or……………..through fiscal union leading to transfers from the “richer” countries.
Next we will look at the history of fiscal transfer within the EU.

If you want more information please feel free to contact us via email  [email protected]

 

IFRS 16 – a new lease of life

| 16-02-2018 | Lionel Pavey |

Leasing is a common method used in business to benefit from using an asset. The part owning the asset is called the lessor who agrees to allow the user – the lessee – to use the asset, in return for a rental fee. The lessee also has to agree to certain terms and conditions as to how the asset can be used and by whom. This arrangement allows a business to enjoy the benefits of an asset – normally property or equipment – without having to purchase the asset outright at inception. The contract can also offer flexibility to the lessee with regard to replacing an asset when it is determined to be outdated. On the 1st January 2019, new accounting standards will be implemented meaning that for a lessee all lease contracts will have to be displayed on the balance sheet – with exception of short dated leases (less than 12 months) and with a monetary value of less than USD 5000.

Impact

There will be no more off balance sheet constructions. The balance sheet of a company will grow, as all leases are included. This would lead to a growth in both assets and liabilities. Furthermore, there will be no distinction between an operating lease and a financial lease as happens now. Under the new regulations a lease contract will be split between the right of use of the asset and the service component costs (including interest expenses) that will now appear as an expense on the profit and loss statement. For businesses that have traditionally relied on lease contracts – aircraft, shipping, heavy industry – there will be a noticeable impact.

Consequences for lessee

This will lead to considerable changes in the standard financial ratios and metrics that a business uses – EBITDA, interest coverage ratio, net income, operating profit, earnings per share, return on equity etc. By placing all lease contracts on the balance sheet, a further effect could be felt on borrowing costs, bank covenant compliance and even credit ratings. There will also be more costs and work involved in complying and maintaining the regulations. It will lead to an increase in debt on the balance sheet. The changes could be so large that some businesses will reconsider if an asset should be leased or purchased outright. This could lead to major reviews and renegotiations of existing contracts.

Whilst this is a change that impacts on the accounting side of a business, the knock-on effects will be visible to a treasury department. It will be necessary to collaborate internally and project the impact on existing bank covenants, other lending facilities and the financial metrics that are used.

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

GDPR and its effects on the bottom line

| 15-02-2018 | treasuryXL |

On the 25th May 2018, GDPR – regulation by the European union – will come into effect. It requires any company that does business within the EU to protect the privacy relating to the data held on consumers, as well as restricting the types of data that can be collected. Obviously, this will mean extra expense for companies as they have to invest in systems and procedures to meet their obligations. However, a recent report by Deutsche Bank has shown that the implications of implementing GDPR could also have an impact on revenue.

At present, large companies like Facebook and Google collate data about their users. Mainly, this data is used to present advertising to the individual based on the analysis of the data showing where they have clicked onto etc. The scope of GDPR is very large and such large companies would not be able to deny access to their users if they decide to opt out of data use.

GDPR defines a principle of purpose limitation, This states that personal data must only be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not furthered processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. This could impact on the revenue stream of such companies.

Google receives approximately 33% of their revenue from Europe. Deutsche bank concluded that if 30% of European users opted out of data sharing, this could affect revenue by 2%. Google and Facebook receive around 75% of all online advertisement spending.

At the same time, research suggests that a quarter of a billion users of news site readers have already installed ad-blockers.

The effects on revenue for websites that actively use data supplied by the actions of their users is difficult to quantify, but it will have an impact. Companies will have to look closely at their projected revenue from online advertising and ask if the figures are too optimistic in the light of this legislation.

If you want more information please feel free to contact us via email [email protected]

 

De 403-verklaring van Shell inzake de NAM. Een analyse.

| 14-02-2018 | Theo Paardekooper |

 

De juridische en fiscale structuur van een groep van ondernemingen is een belangrijk onderdeel van het framework waarin een treasurer zijn werkzaamheden verricht. Bij het aangaan van aansprakelijkheid voor het uitvoeren van een groot bouwkundig project, het geven van borgstelling voor financieringen en het sluiten van cashpools is deze juridische structuur een belangrijk item. Ook het publiceren van informatie aan de markt is hierin een onderwerp.

 

 

Uit informatie van de Kamer van Koophandel blijkt dat op 8 juni 2017 Shell de voor NAM verstrekte 403-verklaring heeft ingetrokken. De NAM heeft op 2 juni 2017 haar jaarrekening over het boekjaar 2016 gedeponeerd. De Groningse inwoners maken zich echter zorgen. In hoeverre kan hun toekomstige claim betaald worden door de NAM? Wat als deze claim niet financieel gedragen kan worden? Welke rechten hebben partijen met een claim en wat is de impact nu voor Shell? Op deze vragen volgt in dit blog een antwoord.

STERKMAKING AAN DOCHTERMIJEN EN DE 403-VERKLARING

Sterkmakingsverklaringen van moedermijen aan dochtermijen zijn een bron van juridisch conflict. Een bekend voorbeeld hierin is de Ceteco affaire. Moedermij handelshuis Hagemeijer had een sterkmakingsverklaring afgegeven voor de financiering van haar dochtermij Ceteco. Toen deze dochter failleerde bleek dat zowel de banken als de provincie Zuid-Holland een grote oninbare vordering hadden, die uiteindelijk niet verhaald kon worden op de moedermij. De toenmalige Commissaris van de Koningin Leemhuis-Stout moest om deze affaire aftreden.

De 403-verklaring is ook een sterkmaking van de moedermij aan haar dochter. Maar wat betekent deze sterkmaking? Banken sluiten per definitie hun eigen hoofdelijke aansprakelijkheids aktes naast deze 403-verklaring. Omdat de 403-verklaring door de moedermij eenzijdig kan worden opgezegd, willen de banken niet verrast worden door deze plotselinge intrekking van de aansprakelijkheid van de moeder.

De 403-verklaring is in essentie bedoeld om de administratieve lasten te verlagen en biedt de mogelijkheid om informatie van dochters voor concurrenten geheim te houden.
De aansprakelijkheid uit hoofde van de 403-verklaring reikt verder dan vorderingen die rechtstreeks voortvloeien uit rechtshandelingen. Ook vorderingen tot schadevergoeding wegens vernietiging of ontbinding van een overeenkomst vallen hieronder, maar vorderingen uit hoofde van een belastingaanslag of onrechtmatige daad zijn weer uitgesloten.

IMPACT VAN INTREKKING

Terug naar Shell. Wat houdt de door Shell afgegeven 403-verklaring in? De 403-verklaring betreft een verklaring naar aanleiding van art 2:403 van het burgerlijk wetboek. Hierin staat dat een dochtermij geen jaarcijfers hoeft te publiceren mits (lid f) een rechtspersoon (in dit geval Shell) zich hoofdelijk aansprakelijk stelt voor de uit de rechtshandelingen van de vennootschap (NAM) voortvloeiende schulden.

Het intrekken van de 403 verklaring is in artikel 404 beschreven. In lid 2 staat hierin echter vermeld dat de aansprakelijkheid blijft bestaan voor schulden die voortvloeien uit rechtshandelingen die zijn verricht voor de intrekking van de verklaring. Schuldeisers hebben 2 maanden de tijd om zich te verzetten tegen intrekking van een 403 verklaring. Voor bestaande verplichtingen blijft de hoofdelijkheid gehandhaafd.

Het verhalen van de aardbevingsschade op NAM valt echter niet binnen de 403 verklaring van Shell. Deze schade wordt namelijk betiteld als een onrechtmatige daad. Pas als de NAM een schikking zou treffen, dan komt de 403-verklaring weer om de hoek kijken.

Wat gebeurt er nu bij een claim? Kan NAM zelf de schadevergoedingen van de Groningers betalen?
Uit de jaarrekening over 2016 blijkt dat NAM 60% van de schadevergoeding voor haar rekening neemt. In 2016 is EUR 98 miljoen onttrokken aan een voorziening; groot EUR 495 miljoen.
In 2016 is het personeelsbestand met ca. 500 fte ingekrompen. Deze reorganisatie was ingezet als gevolg van lagere omzet en hogere operationele kosten, o.a. voor schadevergoeding van het Groninger gasveld. De netto winst over 2016 bedroeg EUR 526 miljoen. Hiervan is EUR 469 miljoen aan dividend uitbetaald aan de aandeelouders Shell en Exxon. Het eigen vermogen van NAM is met EUR 197 miljoen bescheiden. De bezittingen van NAM betreffen met name de waarde van de toekomstig winbare reserves van EUR 3 miljard. Ergo, NAM kan alleen betalen als het gas uit de grond blijft halen en daarom is een 403-verklaring van Shell voor de inwoners van Groningen een belangrijk zekerheidsinstrument, mits een schikking wordt getroffen.

Maar is de terugbetaalcapaciteit van NAM relevant bij een 403-verklaring? Feitelijk is het antwoord “nee”. De Hoge Raad heeft bepaald in het AKZO-ING arrest dat er geen sprake is van een borgtocht, maar dat sprake is van hoofdelijkheid van de moeder. Dit betekent dat niet eerst NAM de verplichting hoeft te voldoen, maar direct Shell kan worden aangesproken op een schadeclaim.
Praktisch zal eerst NAM een claim krijgen, maar Shell kan zich niet verschuilen achter NAM.

IFRS IMPACT

Shell consolideert NAM in haar jaarcijfers. NAM wordt als een joint operation in IFRS geclassificeerd. Na het intrekken van de 403-verklaring zal Shell de NAM blijven mee consolideren. Het wordt nog wel interessant of de accountant in staat blijft om een goedkeurende verklaring aan NAM te blijven geven. De huidige voorzieningen voor de aardbevingsschade zijn immers te laag. Als de gaskraan verder wordt gesloten, dan kan de NAM niet anders, dan hulp van haar moedermijen vragen, voor de waarborging van haar continuïteit.

What’s in it for Shell? Doelstelling was om het publiek duidelijk te maken hoeveel de staat aan de gaswinning verdient en hoeveel NAM. In de verdeling van de schade is informatievoorziening belangrijk. Echter, het intrekken van de 403-verklaring was hiervoor helemaal niet nodig.
Subsidiair is het verkrijgen van een betere onderhandelingspositie tegenover de overheid een uitgangspunt. Maar het is echt naïef van Shell/NAM om te veronderstellen dat hierin enig voordeel te behalen valt. De publieke opinie doet hierin haar werk.

CONCLUSIE:

Nu Shell heeft verklaard om op papier garanties te verstrekken voor de aardbevingsschade is mijn advies aan Shell om de 403-verklaring weer bij de KvK te deponeren. Alle beperkingen aan de garantie zullen via politieke en publicitaire druk worden aangevallen, leidend tot een veel grotere imagoschade.

De Brent Spar ontmanteling en de daaraan gekoppelde boycot van Shell producten in Nederland en Duitsland zal menig oud gediende bij Shell nog goed in het geheugen liggen.

Een geruststellende gedachte voor de Groningers.

 

Theo Paardekoper 

Independent treasury specialist

Can it all be about the Treasury yield?

| 13-02-2018 | treasuryXL |

Since the beginning of February there has seen large declines in all the major stock markets – Dow Jones down 9%, AEX down 7%, DAX down 7%, FTSE down 5%. The major reason given is that the market has been disturbed by the thought that interest rates in the US will rise more quickly than previously expected as prospects of inflation come to the fore. Going counter to this thought is the explanation that stock markets achieved good growth in 2017 – all major markets were up with some growing by 15% – and that this is a bout of profit taking, before participants will buy on the dip.

There is a major rethink as to the predicted treasury yields for the end of 2018. The German 10year Treasury yield, which is seen as a benchmark in the Eurozone, had an average yield in 2017 of about 0.30%. In the first six weeks of 2018 this has more than doubled and the yield is now 0.72%. Reports that had been published at the end of 2017 are rapidly being updated as the predictions are adjusted for the reality of the current market. A quick look at the websites of major banks show a consensus that the yield could easily be 1% at the end of 2018.

As the German 10year Treasury is a benchmark for pricing other long dated instruments within the Eurozone, this implies that all other rates will be rising faster than expected. If we assume that spreads between Interest rate swaps (IRS) and Treasury remains fairly constant, this would imply that 10year EUR IRS will have a fixed rate around 1.50% by the end of 2018 having averaged around 0.80% for 2017.

Included is a graph showing the price movement of 10Y EUR IRS since start of 2017

At the moment headline inflation is remaining stable, but it appears that the market is expecting inflation to move higher in 2018. The increase in the yield of US 10 year Treasury rates has been more rapid than expected – at the moment the yield is almost 2.90%. It would appear that the increase in US rates is pulling other currency yields higher. Furthermore rises in US interest rates will have an impact on FX hedging policies for companies.

Treasury yields have been in a bull market for almost 40 years – in the early 1980s the yield on 10year German treasury was around 10%. This fell gradually and actually turned negative in 2016. Are we entering a new bear market?

TREASURY FOR NON-TREASURERS: The good, the bad and the ugly of outsourcing

| 12-02-2018 | treasuryXL |

Planning & OperationsIn January 2018, Carillion – a British construction, engineering and facilities company – entered into liquidation. They had been in existence since 1999 after a demerger from Tarmac, which had been founded in 1903. They were the second largest construction company in the British isles, employing more than 40,000 people and were listed on the London Stock Exchange. They were known for their role in Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes – a form of Government outsourcing. Their insolvency has led to the loss of jobs, shutdowns of ongoing projects, and financial losses to more than 25,000 pensioners and 30,000 suppliers.

Outsourcing is a method used by most Governments in Europe to buy a particular service as opposed to providing the service directly. This allows a Government (or a company) to identify their core competencies and to buy in the ancillary services they need to perform all their tasks. A big motivator is of course related to cost. For a company this means only employing those staff that are needed for the core operations and hiring in those needed for non-core functions, such as pay roll. For Governments it allows large direct capital expenditure to be removed from the balance sheet whilst still providing necessary services for maintenance and construction in the general infrastructure within the country.

In simple terms, however frustrated we might be with builders or manufacturers, we generally recognise that it is more efficient – both financially and economically – to have external suppliers perform these functions. We do not possess the knowledge or proficiency to undertake building our own homes or designing and fitting our own kitchens. It is more acceptable to hand complex tasks over to others, and so make the procedure more accountable and manageable.

Likewise for companies it is imperative to determine whether to employ permanent staff to undertake their treasury and cash management operations, or to look at buying in the relevant knowledge and expertise. Many companies do not have a dedicated treasury team. Regularly, the work of a treasurer is incorporated into the work of another existing role within the organisation. This can be performed by the CFO, a controller, or the head of planning and control. Invariably, none of these people actually have the complete skill set to perform the treasury task.

When financing is needed for long term investment, contacting 3 banks and just taking the cheapest quote is not actually the same as getting the best deal. The individual banks could have different standard terms and conditions. The ratios expressed in the bank covenants could also differ from bank to bank. Implementing a hedging strategy for foreign currency requires a deep knowledge of the company’s cash flows, sales and purchases, and comprehensive understanding of the different financial products that can be used to hedge the risks.

Employing someone fulltime to perform these tasks is counterintuitive if there is not enough work for that person to be employed full time. Other staff could be resentful; the person could become disenchanted if there is not enough of a challenge in the work; a lack of continuity within the company could exist.

However, employing someone on a flexible basis to do the work that needs to be done and nothing else, allows direct payroll to be cut, a dedicated and proficient person is employed to perform the tasks, and the company can yet again focus on their core competencies.

Are you facing these issues? Are you looking for a professional solution?
Flex treasurer offer you a bespoke solution to address your individual needs.
Contact us for more information and answers.

 

Lionel PaveyLionel Pavey – Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/lionel-pavey/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

IBM-Maersk Blockchain Platform: Breakthrough for Supply Chain?

| 09-02-2018 | Carlo de Meijer |

There are various signals that a number of corporates are moving their blockchain projects towards production. We recently have seen the announcement of the IBM – Maersk project, to create a blockchain based corporate. If accepted in a sufficient way by the various players in the shipping industry supply chain that could mean a real breakthrough for blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. “The big thing that is missing from this industry to digitize and unleash the potential of the technology is really to create a form of utility that brings standards across the entire ecosystem,” Maersk’s Chief Commercial Officer Vincent Clerc.

Present challenges in the shipping industry

This announcement is an answer to the growing demand across the shipping industry for efficiency gains and opportunities coming from streamlining and standardising information flows using digital solutions.

The world’s shipping ecosystems with more than $4 trillion of goods shipped every year have grown in complexity. One major challenge with supply chain management in the shipping industry today involves record keeping. A lot of record keeping is still based on inefficient outdated systems. Along with paper legal documents, much of the international shipping industry’s information has been transmitted via very old technologies.

Presently, many shipping supply chains are still confronted with enormous bulk of paperwork and bureaucracy involving many intermediaries in cross-border trade. Especially the traditional cross-border shipping processes usually involve manually transporting and verifying paper documents for each shipment. Just as an example: “a shipment of refrigerated goods for instance from East Africa to Europe can go through nearly 30 people and organizations and involve more than 200 different communications”.

This means that today, a vast amount of resources are wasted due to inefficient and error-prone manual processes. This could lead to lost documentation or delays in delivering. goods. These costs of the required trade documentation to process and administer many of these goods are estimated to reach one fifth of the total costs of moving a container. By the way, the cost of global trade is estimated at $1.8 trillion annually.

Why blockchain?

The attributes of blockchain technology are said to be ideally suited to large networks of disparate partners like the shipping industry. This technology opens up an entirely new set of possibilities and an innovative opportunity to engage the entire global shipping ecosystem.

Blockchain technology addresses the many supply chain challenges as it establishes an immutable record shared of all the transactions among network participants that is updated in real time, enabling permissioned parties in a private blockchain environment access to trusted data in real time.

Read the full article of our expert Carlo de Meijer on Finextra

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

  

Davos, interest rates and secular stagnation

| 08-02-2018 | Lionel Pavey |

 

Two weeks ago there was the annual meeting of more than 2,000 politicians, business people, economists etc. at the World Economic Forum. For 4 days the most pressing and urgent topics facing the world were discussed. Sifting through all the speeches and press statements, I saw a lot of articles relating to a rather old theme of secular stagnation.

What is it?

It is a theory dating back to the 1930s stating that developed countries can suffer from a period of too small investment and too large savings. This can be the result not only of an economic recession but, more importantly, as the result of changes in the underlying demographics within a country. This would in turn imply that growth would be low to negligible within the economy. As growth slows down, so demand for investment would also slow down, leading to more savings etc.

Normal theory would demand a reduction in interest rates (the cost of money) leading to an increase in long term investments by companies, a comparative feeling of wealth amongst the people and a kick start to the economy.

Since the crisis of 2008, we have experienced an extended period of low interest rates and low inflation. The expected increase in investment, leading to improved production processes and new goods does not appear to have materialised. Furthermore, the effect that the crisis has had on individual people – job losses, house repossessions, insecurity – has made them reticent to indulge in large bouts of consumer spending.

Even with negative interest rates there has been no rush to invest in productivity. Instead funds are invested in financial assets – shares, bonds etc. Whilst offering goods returns, such investments do not add to potential economic productivity and growth in the industries that provide it.

Furthermore, when consumers tighten their belts – restricting spending and increasing savings – they are not actually directly providing funds for investment. Banks operate as intermediaries and extend credit – individual investors do not in the present system.

The economy is growing – GDP forecasts are all up among the major developed countries and inflation appears to be restrained. So have we broken the long existing chain of recognised monetary theory – could we see a prolonged period of steady growth, backed by low interest rates and low inflation?

At this stage of the proceedings an added element was thrown into the debates – demographics.

Europe is experiencing a period of shifting demographics. The long term replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. There has been a steep decline of this rate within Europe, with the rate in Germany being as low as 1.4 children. At the same time people are living longer, which means they are retired for longer. In 2006 there were 4 active workers for every retiree – by 2050 this could be down to only 2. The median age in Europe is expected to rise from 37 to 52 by 2050. EU studies have forecast that by 2050 there will be a reduction of 48 million in the working age population and an increase of 58 million in the retirees.

At the same time other studies suggest there will be a 14% decrease in working population against a 7% decrease in total population. All these projections are based on the current situation and that the trend continues.

If this was to continue, then there would be significant challenges for Europe. The expectation of governments to be able to finance the existing outstanding debt by increases in national GDP will stall. Increased burdens will be placed on the state to provide the necessary facilities to an ageing population whilst the pool of available workers is shrinking, leading to lower productivity per capita. Within the last 10 years the distribution of wealth has been skewed – there is more inequality with the super rich having proportionally even more of the total wealth than before the crisis.

New technology has the ability to change the existing concept of productivity. However, if this could be more than enough to offset the expected developments caused by an ageing population is unclear. It could mean that we are entering a prolonged period of low interest rates, low inflation and low growth. If so, all the economic models – even within companies – will need to be reappraised and a new long term policy initiated.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The strength of the EUR or the weakness of the USD

| 07-02-2018 | treasuryXL |

There has been a significant rise in the value of the EUR in the last year compared to the USD. From a low of USD 1.05 around the end of February 2017, the EUR has climbed up to USD 1.25 – representing an increase of around 20 per cent. Analysts are talking about the price rising above USD 1.30 later this year. All very good from the EUR side, but what is causing the EUR to appear so strong and the USD so weak?

It is fairly well known that the Fed could be looking to increase interest rates in 2018 – consensus is for 3 small rises throughout 2018. As EUR interest rates are negative, initially one would expect a large movement out of EUR and into USD. But it looks as if the economies are aligned in the same way and any rise in USD rates could later be followed by a rise in EUR rates.

A lot will depend on the announcements by the ECB to taper off its QE programme. Long term EUR yields are rising in possible anticipation, but are still far behind USD yields. There is a 2 per cent yield pickup in 10 year USD treasuries over Germany who act as the benchmark for the EUR.

The posturing of the US administration and the words of President Trump appear to be having a negative impact on the value of the USD. Statements from Washington about a weaker USD being good for the US trade have impacted on the market. Trump has been very critical about trade relationships with other countries. The words being uttered by the administration are certainly having a reaction on the markets.

The Dow Jones saw a sell off on Friday – it lost more than 650 points. The job report that was published showed that the US had added 200,000 jobs in January but, despite this good news, fear is growing that this will put upward pressure on inflation, leading to further rises in treasury bond yields.

However, there are potential hazards in the future for the EUR. General elections in Italy are due to take place on the 4th March 2018. Current sentiment within Italy shows a growing negative appreciation of the EU. The trials and tribulations concerning Brexit could also seriously undermine the strength of the EUR.

Whilst it appears that the USD is weak at present, any adverse news from with the EU could lead to a swift reversal in fortunes. The underlying sentiment would imply a weaker dollar, but fundamental changes in economic policy on both sides of the Atlantic could lead to rapid changes in sentiment.

 

If you want more information please feel free to contact us via email [email protected]