Churchill Knight Blog

June was another disappointing month for world stockmarkets with the FTSE100 shedding another -5.23%, making is just over 9% lower than at the start of the year, but 15% higher than twelve months ago. There were a number of reasons for this, not least of which has been the impact of BP on the index of which it is a significant constituent. However, that company’s shares took an upwards turn at the end of the month, seen as an attractive takeover prospect; not that this helped the FTSE100 at the end of the month, which was plagued by fears over weak economic performance in the Far East.

The FTSE250 also fell during the month, losing -2.81%, while the Dow Jones finished June -3.58% lower and the Eurostoxx50 lost -1.42%. The Japanese Nikkei225 was -5.36% down on the month, ending the half-year almost 13% lower than its value at the start of 2010. Oil rose by 1.34% in June to end at US$75.01 per barrel for Brent Crude 1-month futures, but is still some 3.8% below its price at the start of the year. Sterling rose 2.8% against the dollar and 3% against the euro.

Welfare spending appears to be one of the largest of the targets that George Osborne has hit – alongside many other forms of government spending. But the fact is that we have to cut our spending if we are to survive and everyone has to share the pain. Unfortunately, there are too many people who have, over the past thirteen years, been encouraged to consider that the state will look after them whatever. In reality, the welfare state was established to provide security for those who cannot provide for themselves, not to become an alternative source of income for those who will not (as opposed to cannot) work.

While it is incumbent on any civilised society to look after those who cannot provide for themselves, building up an underclass of people who have no experience of work is not only bad for them, it is bad for society as a whole; and the economy needs everyone who can, to join in and work in order to generate tax revenue to help us out of the mess more than a decade of profligate spending has got us into as a country.

June was dominated by the run up to the Emergency Budget and its aftermath. Overall, this was well received despite hikes in tax on capital gains and VAT. The former will largely affect higher earners, whereas the latter will affect us all and is probably a regressive tax in that it hits the less well off progressively more than the wealthy. On the other hand, the increase is only 2.5%, so it should not have an inordinately large impact on spending overall. In fact, we may see a mini boom towards the end of this year as people try to get their discretionary spending in ahead of the increase. At least children’s clothes and food are not affected; they could so easily have lost their exempt status.

One positive result of the Budget was that the credit rating agencies appear to be satisfied that we are heading in the right direction, as they have left our AAA rating in place. Had they not done so, the cost of our massive national debt repayments could have sky-rocketed, making it far more difficult for us to dig our way out of the hole.

The creation of an Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) may sound as if it will only interest economists, because it is largely to do with data reporting. But in fact, it will be as important to us all as is the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).

The OBR will be involved in making an independent assessment of the public finances and the economy for the emergency Budget. But more importantly, forecasts will no longer be determined by the Chancellor’s judgements; he will have to accept the OBR’s forecasts for every future Budget and Pre-Budget Report. The OBR’s independence will ensure that policy is made on an unbiased view of future prospects, improving confidence in the fiscal forecasts.

Chancellors will, of course, retain responsibility for fiscal policy and will set targets for fiscal policy. They will, however, no longer be able to move the goal-posts, as the previous incumbent did with the so-called “Golden Rule” on borrowing. In each Budget and Pre-Budget Report the OBR will confirm whether the Government’s policy is consistent with a better than 50 per cent chance of achieving the forward looking fiscal target set by the Chancellor.

News that the balance of trade slipped further into the red during March (the latest figures available) was something of a shock for economists who had expected recent improvements to accelerate. The deficit on goods fell from £6.3bn in February to £4.5bn; the problem was rapid growth in imports with a fall in exports. Even allowing for the service sector, the overall deficit increased from £2.2bn to £3.7bn. According to the Bank of England’s Agents’ summary of business conditions for May, there has been a recovery in export volumes, but poor demand from our trading partners (especially with a weakening euro) is constraining recovery in terms of value.

On the other hand, manufacturing output has continued to rise and credit conditions, while still tight, appear to be relaxing – although this is largely benefiting larger businesses. Employment intentions are also showing early signs of recovery with some companies in the business services sector reinstating trainee and graduate recruitment schemes to cope with expected demand. However, while employment in the private sector is at least stable, that in the public sector is set for headcount reductions.

There has also been a slight recovery in pay rates, but higher employment costs largely relate to a return to full time working, where there had previously been a reduction in hours.

Inflation continues to worry, particularly in view of low growth rates. Some time ago the Institute of Directors’ Chief Economist, Graeme Leach, warned of the possibility of what he called “stickyflation” – rising prices against a backdrop of zero economic growth. The Consumer Prices Index has hit an annual rate of increase of 3.7% and the Retail Prices Index, which includes housing costs and therefore probably represents a more accurate picture of how families are affected, 5.3%. Six months ago, the CPI was rising at 1.5% and the RPI actually in negative territory.

While there is still some economic growth – especially if what the Bank of England says are temporary factors affecting inflation quickly pass out of the system – this might not be a problem. But the impact of quantitative easing is still such that there is more money in the economy than there should be and this can be inflationary.

According to the Bank of England’s own projections in its May Inflation Report, there is more than a 75% chance of overshooting the 2% CPI target during the second quarter and a 25% to 50% chance of overshooting the target in every quarter from now until the second quarter of 2013. This is actually worse than its forecasts in the February Report.

May was something of a rollercoaster for most markets, with the FTSE100 ending the month -6.57% down. In fact it is now just over 4% lower than at the start of the year, but still 17% up over12 months. The main cause for this – and the poor performance of other markets – has been concern over the Eurozone, thanks to the economic condition of Greece and some of the other southern European countries. In the case of the FTSE100, this has been exacerbated by some internal issues, such as the 14% loss in value suffered by BP during the month as a result of the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spillage and the 6.6% loss of value in Prudential’s shares, as it struggles to gain acceptance for its proposed purchase of AIA (AIG’s Asian business) for what is increasingly looking to be too high a price.

The mid-cap FTSE250 lost -7.03% of its value last month, but is still more than 3.5% higher than at the start of 2010. Meanwhile, on the other side of the “Pond”, the Dow Jones was down -7.92% and the Nasdaq100 -8.29%. Worst performer for the month was the Nikkei225, which lost a whopping -12.17% of its value during May.

Gold, which had peaked at more than US$1,240 per troy ounce during May, ended 3.48% higher at US$1,219.33, while oil, which peaked at about US$90 per barrel for Brent crude 1-month futures, ended the month -15.35% down at US$74.02.

Sterling fluctuated significantly against the euro during May, hitting a low of €1.14 before ending 2.91% higher at €1.184. Conversely, it lost some -4.9% of its value against the dollar (which is why fuel prices have not fallen as much as crude prices might suggest), ending at US$1.45.

The good news is that (as we predicted last month) growth for the first quarter of 2010 has been revised upwards to 0.3% from 0.2%. The fact that this is slower than the revised figure for the end of 2009 is, according to the Bank of England’s Inflation Report for May, probably due to temporary factors such as the weather. Business surveys point to a return to faster growth for the second quarter and few now predict that even the first tranche of spending cuts will push us into double-dip recession. The Bank of England’s projections for Gross Domestic Product growth are in the 2% – 3% a year range for the end of this year and beyond.

Unemployment rose slightly during the first quarter of 2010, just scraping above 2.5 million; which is good news for the economy generally, even if not for those directly affected. With the economy set to continue growing, we can be hopeful that the employment rate will soon bounce back to regain its 0.3% fall (to 72%) over the first quarter.

The first round of public spending cuts will only be the tip of the iceberg as we already know, and while we may not be in as deep trouble as Greece or Spain, we certainly must start living within our means. This is likely to involve unpleasant cuts in many aspects of public expenditure and, while steps must be taken to protect front-line services, it is interesting to note that according to the Sunday Times (16^th May) average regular pay in the public sector is almost £460 a week, while in the private sector is it only just over £420 a week. This gap of almost 10% is in addition to the fact that most public sector employees enjoy final salary pension schemes, while many of the rest of us do not.

This is by no means critical of public sector workers, simply a recognition that the cost of government is simply too high. Cuts need to be made but should, wherever possible, be sensitive to the needs of individuals. Better that they suffer a pay and recruitment freeze, than lose their jobs.

While a coalition may not have been the result that the main parties wanted, this appears to be the will of the electorate. Perhaps more importantly, it could enable the government to be more radical in its fight to put the economy back on a sound footing than might have been the case had the Conservatives won an overall majority.

It is not that they might have been any less committed to slashing state spending if standing alone but rather that, if the Governor of the Bank of England was correctly quoted as suggesting that whoever won the election would face a generation in opposition, then a problem shared is a problem halved. In other words, the Conservatives – clearly the senior partner in the coalition by right of seats and popular votes – can do what it really must, while sharing the “blame” with the Liberal Democrats.

This is not, however, a one-way street. In return for fulfilling the vital function of helping to take the flak, a party that has been in opposition since its last coalition participation during the Second World War (and even then, it had no places in the War Cabinet) will benefit from being able to gain experience in power and demonstrate what it can do.

Whether or not we like the idea of proportional representation and the prospect of semi-permanent coalition government, a broadening of the political spectrum now seems inevitable. What effect it will have on the long term economic future has yet to be determined.