Finance Archives - WA Communications

Government pushes on with plan for cryptoassets regulation – but questions remain for business

The Government’s response this week to the consultation on the future regulatory regime for cryptoassets represents a significant, positive step forward – matching other markets around the world – in establishing a regulatory framework to allow crypto and blockchain to flourish as a driver of growth in the UK fintech sector.

The document released this week set out the Treasury’s plan to implement, following industry feedback, many of the proposals for the future regulatory framework of the sector outlined in April this year. The areas covered by the consultation range from fundamentals like the definition of cryptoassets and the broad legislative approach; to plans to regulate core activities such as custody and lending; and to bring centralised cryptoasset exchanges into the financial services regulatory perimeter for the first time.

What the Government is aiming to do with the proposed framework is manage clear tensions in designing policy that improves consumer outcomes; encourages investment and international competitiveness, all the while protecting against market failure – driven by high profile examples like the collapse of FTX. This is a tricky balance to strike. Heading into an election year, the plan outlined this week still has a number of unresolved questions that will need to be worked through with industry and addressed before implementation.

Lack of clarity on timescales

The Treasury was keen to make clear the consensus that exists across the industry for the plan presented earlier this year – highlighting that nearly 80% of respondents were in ‘broad agreement’ – indeed, many of the proposals set out in the original framework earlier this year were taken forward without any modification. This has seen a number of the issues that were raised by critics unaddressed – for example how crypto gambling will be dealt with under the new regime.

In addition, the document was relatively light on detail in terms of when the critical ‘phase 2’ secondary legislation, that will give the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) its new powers to regulate the sector, can be expected, nor on the exact mechanisms for how this will be added to the statute. It was confirmed that legislation would be “laid in 2024” subject to Parliamentary time. This timescale, while offering a general idea of when we can expect forward movement, becomes murkier when you consider the political uncertainty (and crucially, the loss of Parliamentary time) that will occur due to the general election expected next year. Given the state of the polls, it certainly makes Labour’s position on the future regulatory framework equally as important as that of the current Government.

Where Labour stand

Speaking of the Opposition: shadow Treasury ministers were keen to stress to businesses at Party Conference last month that they would not be ripping things up and starting afresh with the Treasury’s current proposals for crypto and the wider fintech sector. Some concerns were raised by shadow ministers as to whether proposals go far enough on consumer protections regarding the promotion of cryptoassets – reflecting Labour’s focus on this issue across many policy areas.

As it stands then, the consensus is that the direction of travel on crypto will remain broadly the same. However, should an incoming Labour government, with this added focus on protecting consumers, inherit a half-finished regulatory regime in late 2024, there remains the risk that the checks and balances on firms contained within the proposals could be made more stringent.

Any additional measures placed upon the FCA in the name of consumer protection (on top of the already greatly expanded powers handed to the regulator as part of this plan) would run the risk of overburdening an already-stretched regulator and adversely impact all firms in the space – not just those who are subject to the specific consumer-facing measures that Labour may seek to introduce. This is a risk firms should consider highlighting to the Labour Treasury team as they consult with business on the future of fintech.

Further friction between innovators and traditional players to be expected

From a wider industry perspective, there remains questions around how new and innovative financial products would be prioritised and onboarded into the proposed framework as they emerge. The lack of detail here is critical in terms of how it relates to recent issues such as de-banking of assets, with its highly charged political debate and subsequent scrutiny from the FCA. De-banking is an example of an issue that is known to disproportionately affect cryptoasset businesses – both those in the DeFi space and beyond. Other markets around the world – including the US and the EU with their Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework – are making changes that seek to resolve this issue, encouraging growth and cross-sector collaboration. The Treasury’s plan set out this week does not yet address this issue – leaving the door open for suggestions from business to prevent the UK from falling behind its international competitors.

Conclusion

Therefore, while its clear that the measures outlined in the Government response this week are, overall, the right approach, the timeline put forward for when this will become a reality remains somewhat unclear, especially given the uncertain year we are anticipating from a political perspective, and factoring in positive progress in other markets around the world. For fintechs and the wider sector, there is still a significant amount of work to be done in making the case to both the current Government and Labour in advance of the next election for a swiftly implemented and proportionate future regulatory framework.

Share this content:

Labour Spotlight – Key people for financial and professional services

Under Keir Starmer the Labour Party has reset its relationship with corporate Britain and reestablished itself with the financial and professional services sector (FPS) through a sustained charm offensive in the City and beyond.

Led by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and closely supported by Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, and Tulip Siddiq, Shadow City Minister, this strategy is paying dividends. Bloomberg reported that the majority of money managers and traders backed a Labour government at the next General Election being the best outcome for the City.

While the Labour party can be pleased with establishing a receptive audience across FPS, which anybody who has recently attended an event with Rachel Reeves can testify, significant challenges remain.

Economic Growth

Primary among these challenges is delivering on the first of Labour’s five key missions for Government: ‘Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 – with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country making everyone, not just a few, better off’. With the UK economy suffering from continued weak growth – currently forecast by the OECD to have the second lowest growth across the G20 in 2024 – high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, the shadow team will be at the forefront of explaining, and then implementing, this incredibly ambitious target, if Labour forms the next government.

So how will Labour jumpstart UK economic growth? Plans are already being set out. Rachel Reeves sees the transition to NetZero as a significant opportunity. The party’s Green Prosperity Plan crystallises this thinking and scale of ambition, whilst also recognising the threat to UK competitiveness of the Inflation Reduction Act and European response. Equally, a robust Industrial Strategy is being developed under Jonathan Reynolds to set out a framework for a stable, long-term planning and investment. The FPS will be a critical partner for Labour in delivering on both these headline economic policies and has welcomed Labour’s commitments to reform planning laws, especially for renewable energy projects.

However, many questions remain on policy detail. For example, how will a Labour government meet its commitment to deliver 100% clean power by 2030? Especially, while delaying its pledge to invest £28bn annually in green investment until the middle of the next Parliament (2026), on the grounds of fiscal responsibility.

Financial and Professional Services

The last few years has seen major policy reform across the FPS sector. The Financial Services and Markets Act has created a UK regulatory framework for financial services, payment services and financial market infrastructure. The current government has set out its future vision for FPS through the Edinburgh Reforms and recently the Mansion House Reforms, with significant impact for the insurance and pensions sectors.

Labour has played an active role in this reform process, but again questions remain over how this policy landscape will evolve under a newly formed Labour government. Will it stick with the current vision for the regulatory framework for FPS in the UK? Will it fully implement the Mansion House reforms, given the shadow team have announced their own headline policy on pension reform? Will it align with the government on delaying some NetZero targets? How will it regulate the Buy Now Pay Later Market? How does it see the development of Open Finance? Will it continue with audit reform? How will it manage the tension between the supervisory role of regulators, with the ‘new’ secondary objective focused on competition. The list goes on!

Brexit

If this was not enough, Keir Starmer’s recent meeting with President Macron in Paris, and France and German proposals for a tiered EU membership has put Brexit in the media spotlight again. Labour is clear that there is no intention of re-joining the single market in a first-term Labour government, and the FPS sector has largely moved on from Brexit.

However, the review of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 2026, and Starmer’s commitment to get a “much better” Brexit will ensure that 10 years after the EU referendum vote the UK’s relationship with Europe will remain a live issue for FPS.

WA Communications

WA’s Financial and Professional Services practice has put together a top line summary of the Shadow Cabinet and Ministers who will deliver on Labour’s ambitious plans for FPS and the UK economy. These are the people that your business needs to know and track as they develop the policy detail to achieve the ‘highest sustained growth in the G7’.

Labour Spotlight: Key people in Financial and Professional Services [PDF]

If you would like to find out more about WA’s Financial and Professional Services Practice and the services we provide, please contact Tom Frackowiak at Tom.frackowiak@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Buy Now Pay Later: stalled regulation risks hitting responsible lenders and consumers

Today the Treasury’s Future of Payments Review call for input draws to a close and in due course, Chairman Joe Garner will set out his recommendations on how the government can deliver world-leading retail payments.

The regulation of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) products and services continues to demonstrate the intense political scrutiny of retail payment journeys and consumer finance more broadly.

Despite some progress made by the Government, a timeline implementing secondary legislation to bring this interest-free BNPL option under the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulator remains unclear. Recent speculation over the Government’s delay has prompted fresh concern, particularly amongst Labour politicians, that regulation will be hindered and that consumers will potentially be put at risk.

This delay is said to be driven by a desire from ministers to maintain consumer choice on interest-free consumer credit products during the cost of living crisis and ensure providers stay in the UK market. If speculation is to be believed, this approach is symptomatic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s overarching ambition to drive economic growth and market competition.

The draft secondary legislation, through the Financial Services and Markets Act, is supported by the FCA, with its Chief Executive, Nikhil Rathi recently informing the Treasury Select Committee that legislation is required to prevent consumer harm. And leading market players, such as Klarna have also called publicly for proportionate regulation of the sector.

Labour have looked to exploit the delay to demonstrate a commitment to consumer protection – a hallmark of their positioning in the lead up to the General Election. And in a recent letter to the City Minister Andrew Griffith, Shadow City Minister Tulip Siddiq reiterated that Labour would work with industry to regulate the BNPL sector, having previously raised amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act on the undertaking of credit checks, access to the Financial Ombudsman and consumer protection under the Consumer Credit Act.

This continued political scuffle over the shape and timing of BNPL regulation creates uncertainty for the market. Yet despite this uncertainty, there is an opportunity for BNPL providers to establish themselves as a partner to government, help to shape what “good” looks like and show progress on self-regulation.

Our recent research found that 42% of MPs cite evidence of consumer outcomes as the biggest factor in informing their policy decision making and 44% want to see consumer data and insight, so providing evidence of good consumer outcomes is key for the BNPL sector. In the pre-election period, it will be crucial to strike a balance between showing commitment to the market while highlighting that consumer care is at the heart of all operations.

Share this content:

Do your duty: The financial regulatory shake-up of the vicennial

As the long-anticipated consumer duty comes into force today the financial services sector faces the biggest regulatory overhaul in over two decades. One marked by a notable willingness from the FCA to take “robust action” if the sector fails to comply – an indication of the more interventionist stance the regulator has pursued in recent years.

The duty reforms, driven by FCA concerns over sustained consumer detriment and poor customer service, mark a landmark moment for the market. The scope of the 120-plus page document is broad, but its four key pillars are: products and services; price and value; ensuring that consumers understand products; and making sure they get support.

And whilst the sector has had since July 2022 to prepare itself, the impact will be far reaching and could cost the industry up to £2.4bn. Banks, building societies, insurers and investment companies are amongst those impacted, as well as motor finance, product warranties and store cards. For many, it means older financial products which do not meet the higher standards will be removed from the market in a move which the FCA hopes will spur competition and drive innovation.

Whilst the consumer duty has been broadly welcomed by industry, politicians and consumer champions alike, its implementation will not be plain sailing.

The rules are still up for interpretation

The FCA is known for not being overly prescriptive in its rules. It tends to lay out guidelines and leave it to firms to interpret them. The same can be said for the consumer duty which has been simultaneously criticised as too interventionist and too vague – a difficult balance to strike. For many firms, identifying where the new rules need to be applied and the value of making these changes will be a significant undertaking.

Sections of the market have been missed

The new rules will only apply to sections of the market and products which are already regulated by the FCA, meaning that anything outside this far-reaching definition will not be held to the same standards. This is particularly key for the Buy-Now-Pay-Later sector, where recent speculation that the government will delay the timetable for new regulation, will no doubt be met with more robust criticism as the standards gap widens.

It’s going to get political

Political scrutiny of the financial services sector has been heightened in recent weeks – with attention turning to customer screening processes, passing on of savings, and reporting and governance standards. A regulatory requirement for “higher standards” across the market adds to the arsenal of MPs looking to hold the sector to account.

As we approach the next general election, politics will become simple and populist as parties focus on winning votes. That means even technical regulation can become a lightening rod for support or dissent.

The Conservative Government will point to the introduction of the consumer duty as a sign of its commitment to its voters and draw on the duty’s principles to make new interventions. Action on banks withdrawing accounts, for example, fits neatly when framed by the new consumer duty. On the other hand, the 120-page document provides the Labour Opposition with a foundation on which to launch its consumer-centric approach to financial services and a stick to beat the Government with if it fails to take – or ask the regulator to take – action where providers fall short.

For providers, this means there is a need to review the risks and opportunities the consumer duty presents and ensure that the action they are taking to champion consumer interest shines through with politicians and the media alike as scrutiny mounts. Getting the evidence base right will be key to securing long-term impact amongst those shaping the future operating environment.

For further information or a presentation on how WA Communications can help you, please get in touch with Natasha Egan-Sjodin by email – natashaegan-sjodin@wacomms.co.uk or on 07706 325 417.

Share this content:

Girls just wanna have funds

“It’s OK if you don’t know.”

Ahead of International Women’s Day, WA hosted an all-female panel of financiers to discuss how firms are better engaging with women to improve financial understanding and awareness, and where the industry, policy and the media narrative around women in wealth needs to evolve.

On the panel, Etiksha Patel, Lead Private Banking Director, Metro Bank; Karen Kerrigan, COO, Moneybox; and Elizabeth Caley, Independent Financial Adviser, Aegis Financial Planning Limited discussed what makes women tick when it comes to money and financial products, and how they can better engage with their finances for themselves and for their friends, children and colleagues.

Women make up 49.6% of the global population and are widely predicted to control 60% of the UK’s wealth by 2025, yet 72% of us feel like we’re not understood by the finance industry.

This feeling of exclusion is perhaps why only 10% of women prioritise making long term investments which, when women’s pensions on average are £100,000 less than men’s due to the gender pay gap and childcare commitments, seems a very low proportion.

Elizabeth Caley, who focuses on supporting women, reassuringly said that it’s OK if you don’t understand something relating to your finances: “no one said you should have this knowledge. There seems to be shame attached to it but it’s OK if you don’t know, that’s why we’re here.”

Similarly, Etiksha Patel believes that having someone to talk to and trust in the bank makes a huge difference to women’s confidence and attitudes towards their finances. She said: “women benefit from in-person contact because we like to ask questions. Financial knowledge becomes accessible if you can ask in-person questions.”

The sector can’t shy away from the fact that it has, for too long, been dominated by men, and Etiksha crucially said: “It’s important to have women representing women who need answers because it makes asking the questions easier. This is where the change is going to come from.”

However, women are playing catch up on the education, word-of-mouth advice and knowledge they missed out on growing up because most of the time. There is a question over where responsibility for financial education lies – across all genders – and whether regulatory or policy reform is needed to ensure knowledge and access is instilled early.

With products such as Lifetime ISAs, women are likely to buy into the goal that the ISA can help with, such as buying a home, rather than simply having the product to make more money. Interestingly, Karen Kerrigan said that MoneyBox’s Lifetime ISAs are held by an equal split of both men and women, but that’s not because they’re marketed differently.

Reform of the ASA standards for financial products, or the introduction of the consumer duty, will go some way in shaping how products are marketed and communicated to consumers going forward. We’re seeing a greater focus on firms needing to ensure their comms are “socially responsible”, and the last’s years decision by the ASA to sanction irresponsible “influencers” has marked a firmer stance on how products are communicated.

Though work is still needed to shape the financial services world to meet the needs of women, much has changed in the last 20 years. At the end of the discussion, each panellist was asked what advice they’d give their younger self. Elizabeth said reap the rewards of compound interest early and learn the value of not rushing to spend, but saving to have more. Karen highlighted the importance of creating a habit early, and Etiksha said she would tell herself that it’s OK to ask questions and to feel confident doing so.

Hopefully, as more of us chat about our money and what we do with it, we’ll help each other, break down the stigma and put ourselves and younger generations on the same starting line as men.

Because who run the world? Girls.

Share this content:

Financing the future of Net Zero

Earlier this week I was delighted to attend UKSIF’s Autumn Conference, where speakers from across the financial services sector discussed key topics such as the impact of the political environment on the green agenda (spoiler – it’s big); recent changes in the regulatory landscape; and the critical role of biodiversity. Green Party MP for Brighton, Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also took centre stage to provide a no-holds barred view on the “fundamental mismanagement” of the economy and what we need to turn this ship around and hit our Net Zero ambitions.

The discussions were wide-ranging and incredibly thought-provoking, but my top take-aways around how we are going to reach Net Zero were:

1. The UK needs a robust regulatory framework

Regulation, clearly designed for Net Zero and nature, which provides the right signals to finance to invest, will unleash capital where it’s needed most. If people can trust that Government regulations are here to stay, it will incentivise huge investment in sustainability – enabling the UK to re-position itself as a global climate leader and simultaneously help to solve the climate crisis. Essentially, Government support and signalling is our Golden Ticket to a sustainable future (Rishi, please take note).

2. Biodiversity isn’t just a “nice to have”

As Caroline Lucas so aptly put it, “nature fundamentally underpins human wellbeing.” If we continue to eradicate biodiversity, all other climate goals will be missed. While the UK has signed up to the 10 Point Plan to bridge the global nature finance gap, we still have some way to go to successfully funnel finance into this crucial area. The good news here is that the data around biodiversity is becoming increasingly accessible and with COP15 (the biodiversity COP) kicking off in less than a month – action is going in the right direction.

3. Consumer education is critical

Industry conversations around taxonomies (of which there are 30, globally), ESG transaction flow and ensuring a Just Transition are, of course, essential. However, what we need to remember is how to communicate this to the end investor – the general public. So much of what needs to be done comes down to behaviour change – with investors voting with their feet, asking probing questions of their fund managers and making sustainability part of the growth agenda. Consumer understanding and awareness around what Net Zero really means is low and, as WA’s recent research highlighted, confusion reigns when consumers are asked what they are actually investing in.

While it’s brilliant to hear the financial industry unite in its desire to hit Net Zero and show that solutions really are at hand, let’s not forget that we need to bring the main audience – the end consumer – along with us. Clear communication and time spent educating the public on what the industry is doing, and why, has a crucial role to play in achieving our sustainability goals and delivering a future to be proud of.

Share this content:

Tax Rises Now, An Income Tax Cut To Come

Rishi Sunak has just delivered one of the oddest economic statements in recent years. Sunak punctuated his speech to MPs with warnings from the Office for Budget Responsibility that we were living through a period of “unusually high uncertainty”. Indeed, as confirmation of the gloomy economic climate, the OBR’s growth forecasts for the coming years were revised downwards. Ominously, the Chancellor made clear that these forecasts had not considered the consequences of the war in Ukraine. Sunak was blunt. He acknowledged the economic situation could “worsen”.

Yet he felt the need to stride through the foggy future and announce a cut to the basic rate of income tax in 2024. The strange announcement is illuminating for several reasons. For businesses wondering when the next election will be here is a big clue. Boris Johnson and Sunak are targeting 2024 and not an early election next year. They seek a campaign following a tax-cutting budget.

Usually a pre-election tax cut is kept as a surprise until the very last minute to propel a governing party towards a campaign. But, given today’s announcement, two years before implementation, there will now be no surprise in 2024. The far-off pledge shows that Johnson and Sunak are alarmed by the commentary about their tax-rising policies over the last couple of years. As worried Tory MPs have noted, the duo have presided over more tax rises already than Blair and Brown did in ten years. For different reasons both Johnson and Sunak needed some good news now about a cut in income tax. As a result, they announced it early. Johnson wants to keep his job; Sunak would like to be Prime Minister. They tried to give Tory MPs some distant good news, but the pledge is both politically and economically risky. Will they have to find other surprises by 2024? Will the cut seem credible then?

The measures that take immediate effect are broadly unsurprising: a cut in fuel duty and the lifting of the threshold before National Insurance is paid. Some Tory MPs were delighted that the threshold was raised by £3,000, higher than they had anticipated.

But on the whole Sunak did the least possible in the short term. He knows he will have to do more in the autumn when he delivers his official annual Budget. This was only meant to be an economic update, but there has not been a single statement from Sunak during a period of economic calm. This was no exception. He had no choice but to deliver in effect a mini budget.

Looking ahead Sunak could not have been clearer as to how businesses can engage with government in the run up to the Autumn Budget. If he has had a distinctive theme as Chancellor, it is his search for a ‘business-led recovery’. This was the main topic in his Mais lecture, delivered on the day Russia invaded Ukraine and therefore largely overlooked. Sunak had spent huge amounts of time on the lecture, traditionally regarded as the address that defines Chancellors. In his statement to MPs, he expanded on the Mais lecture, telling them he was exploring “tax cutting options” that encourage the private sector to “innovate”, invest in vocational training, spend more on R and D, and on capital investment. He plans a big package of fiscal reforms this autumn and will be consulting with businesses in the coming months. Sunak sees these reforms as a way of addressing the UK’s relatively low productivity and to boost economic growth when the economy is weak.

I sense he genuinely wants to engage with businesses as to how this can be brought about. He has not yet decided on the tax policies that he plans to unveil in the autumn budget.

For businesses wondering how Labour will approach the next election, the Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, provided several answers in her response. She adopted a similar approach to that of Gordon Brown when he was Shadow Chancellor in the run up to the 1997 election. In her case she attacked Sunak’s National Insurance rise and accused him of wasting taxpayers’ money in spending billions on useless equipment during the pandemic. Brown did the same in 1997, arguing for ‘fair’ taxes rather than ‘higher’ taxes and pledging ‘competent’ spending rather than wasteful expenditure. Reeves also accused Sunak of ignoring the needs of businesses. Like Brown, Reeves wants to be seen as a pro- business Shadow Chancellor. She is keen to engage with business and is struck by how businesses are increasingly keen to engage with her.

For now, the return of inflation has some advantages for Sunak. Higher prices mean higher tax receipts. This has given him some wriggle room to play the fiscal conservative that also intervenes by spending money. But those benefits do not last very long. Soon public sector pay claims will soar in order to meet rising prices. High inflation can also undermine already low levels of economic growth. Inflation – more than any other economic factor -tends to destabilise governments. Sunak is keeping his fingers crossed that he has done enough in the short term. Some Conservative MPs are not so sure. The OBR’s official forecast is that this year, real household disposable income per person – or living standards – will fall by more than at any time since reliable data was collected. His promotion shortly before the pandemic means that Sunak has endured a turbulent time as Chancellor. Arguably the biggest storms are still to come.

Share this content:

Statement of Intent: Rishi goes from spender to saver…for now

This article originally appeared in Real Deals on 24 March 2022.

Rishi Sunak might have hoped that his first truly post-Covid fiscal statement could be one brimming with sunny optimism. With the Perspex screens, masks and social-distancing markers gone from the Commons, he perhaps imagined enjoying his time in the spotlight buoyed by impressive growth figures, record employment and harmony throughout the land.

Instead, as the Chancellor rose to deliver his Spring Statement he was faced with an unenviable challenge. Rising energy prices, global disruption to supply chains –exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine war – have driven up living costs to the point of crisis. Add to this the threat of inflation creeping into double digits before too long and Sunak’s task begins to look Sisyphean.

With this context in mind, it was crucial that the Spring Statement needed to outline the government’s plans for addressing immediate economic imperatives and set out a coherent plan for tackling the economic headwinds that threaten to cause economic hardship for millions over the coming months.

And that’s what we got, to an extent. Sunak’s approach sought both to meet the short-term challenges which the economy faces and to demonstrate something of his own ideology in charting a course for the longer term. Since he took office in No.11, the Chancellor has had little opportunity to set out his stall as a true fiscal conservative. This Statement was a marker, outlining a multi-year plan towards economic strength and sustainability, and looking beyond immediate tax rises and medium-term tax cuts.

Saving today, but more spending likely in the autumn

Sunak’s tone was, for the most part, sombre. He repeated the government’s commitment to provide military and humanitarian resources to Ukraine and to ongoing sanctions on Russia, but warned that this would not be cost-free. He told MPs to prepare for the economy and public finances to worsen – “potentially significantly”. The OBR feels similarly, and has revised its GDP growth forecasts downwards, to 3.8% in 2022 and 1.8% in 2023.

Sunak set out headline-grabbing plans to raise the National Insurance Contribution threshold by £3,000 – bringing it in line with the income tax threshold – alongside a drop in fuel duty by 5p per litre for 12 months, and exempting energy efficiency measures from VAT. The Chancellor will use these as clear examples of the additional – decidedly Conservative-sounding – support he is offering.

He has deliberately chosen not to capitulate to those calling for another spending spree to handle the cost of living, instead choosing to save and to leave a clear “margin of safety” to create fiscal headroom. This has not gone unnoticed. The RAC has already called the fuel duty cut “a drop in the ocean” and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has expressed concern about support for those on means-tested benefits. This may come with a political cost. Sunak has gambled that the benefits of focusing on tax cutting outweigh the risks, but with even the Daily Telegraph focusing on the coming cost of living crisis, there is every chance that Sunak will be forced to revise his fiscal strategy.

Charting a low-tax course

In tone and emphasis, this was a very different Sunak to the one who delivered the Budget last October. Where that Budget made large spending commitments – raising the budgets of every government department – the Spring Statement acknowledged that rising inflation will mean that the real-terms increases will now be less than anticipated. Where last year’s Budget revolved around the ever-present phrase “Levelling Up”, this time the Chancellor didn’t say those magic words once.

Instead, the Chancellor unveiled his new “Tax Plan” – an approach to reduce and reform taxes for people and businesses, with more detail on measures due in the Autumn Budget. The publication of the Plan signals a clear direction of travel for the Conservatives for the remainder of this parliamentary term, and the rationale seems clear: the Chancellor wants to keep backbenchers concerned about the tax burden becoming too high on side. His ambition to lower the basic rate of income tax by 1% by 2024 is a sure sign that reducing the tax burden on voters will be a key part of the Conservative strategy at the next election.

But the government will need to walk a careful tightrope over the next two years. It will have to provide enough support to those in immediate need, maintain sufficient headroom to deal with further uncertainty, and still offer enough eye-catching policies to the electorate to reverse their current deficit in the polls.

The Chancellor has been clear that engaging with businesses will be key to the success of this plan. He has long sought a “business-led recovery” and is likely to provide ample opportunities for businesses to make their voices heard as the next Budget approaches. With changes to R&D tax credits, reductions in investment taxes and new incentives for employee training all under consideration, investors will want to make sure that their portfolio companies think carefully about the changes that they would like to see, and develop clear strategies for conveying those ideas to the government over the coming months.

Share this content:

Solvency II reforms: a key Brexit win for the government?

Share this content:

FinTech needs to find its legs

The UK’s FinTech sector is having its time in the sun.

Major players in the sector are growing into serious outfits. Revolut is now the most valuable private tech company of all time, Wise is setting course on its next decade of business, and a suite of smaller firms being eyed up by investors.

Added to this, political figures are keener than ever to discuss the sector’s role in Britain’s economic future. In the wake of Brexit, ministers have set out on a charm offensive to align themselves with FinTech success stories as part of government’s narrative of the UK at the heart of financial and technical innovation. Whether large or small, government has positioned itself as an ally of these businesses and Britain as the place to be to start, grow and succeed.

This trend is set to continue with announcements planned at attracting talent through ‘new tech visas’ and a new fund aimed at investing in tech start-ups by taking a stake in them. A new consultation will also aim to create a more level playing field for new businesses by curtailing the market dominance of the largest foreign tech companies like Google and Apple.

Despite this overall positive picture there are still considerable challenges for the sector.

Many FinTech businesses are disrupting existing markets and making meaningful improvements for consumers. Whilst a set of engaged customers will reap the benefits of this approach, many do not, due to a lack of awareness, or fears of new brands. Though government will not drive uptake, it has yet to engage coherently in the meaningful action it can take, such as greater transparency or setting new consumers standards. This means that businesses are left communicating with often disengaged consumers on technical issues that they have little experience of, where strategic government intervention would drive consumer benefit.

Government is now also giving greater attention to other (more traditional) financial services to deliver its agenda for ‘left behind’ consumers, such as protecting physical cash infrastructure for those who still use it, or relying on banks to deliver home ownership through the 5% deposit scheme. Whilst this could reflect the strong contacts of existing financial services within government, it also shows that many within departments default to engaging traditional financial services instead of looking to new and innovative approaches.

As scrutiny of online economic harms grow and other issues emerge, FinTech needs to be on the front foot if it is to make its current good standing connect with the priorities of the government and result in meaningful change.

FinTech businesses have a clear and compelling story to tell on their success, benefit for consumers, and role in the future of Britain. As they look to expand beyond their current customer base, and take the UK by storm, businesses will need to work with government more closely. Not as a photo opportunity, but a constructive partner to resolve the challenges of the day.

This can be achieved, but it will need clear messaging, strong alliances, and a proposition that government can get behind.

Share this content:

The impact of Covid on international travel this summer and beyond

The article below was written by Pauline Guénot, a member of WA’s Investor Services practice.

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared that on 3 June there was “nothing in the data” to suggest a delay to the 21 June reopening target will be necessary, hopes of holidays abroad are still stymied by both testing and quarantine requirements, potentially jeopardising the recovery of the travel industry.

The UK is currently operating a three-tier “traffic light” system for international arrivals, which is reviewed every three weeks. Arrivals from countries in the red list require a 10-day hotel quarantine, while those from countries on the amber list are required to quarantine at home for 10 days and book tests for the second and eighth days. Arrivals from the green list – which presently includes only 12 territories – need not quarantine but are still required to take a test on the second day post-arrival.

Key barriers facing travellers

Ongoing restrictions to international travel will exacerbate the economic damage which the pandemic has done to the travel and aviation industry. According to the ONS, it has been the worst affected by the pandemic, with a fall to its lowest turnover rate in May 2020, at just 26% of February levels, compared with 73.6% in all other industries. The Minister responsible for tourism, Nigel Huddleston, has claimed that the government’s response to the travel industry crisis has been “immense” but, as yet, there is little sign of a sustained upswing in the industry’s fortunes, as the additional hassle Covid protocols entail continuing to deter travellers.

Firstly, the testing system has drawn criticism for its cost – up to £378 for the two tests for one individual. The government has been called upon to cap it to £50 by the Institute of Travel and Tourism, and to scrap the VAT on tests as a means of promoting the travel and aviation industry’s recovery. But the issues of testing go beyond cost. Private laboratories are already overwhelmed and travellers face delays in getting their results, demanding more flexibility around arrivals and departures. This problem is likely to be magnified if the green list is expanded in the coming months. Travel insurance has thus become a hot topic, and some travel companies might also offer packages including testing to ease travellers’ minds, like TUI which has partnered with Chronomics to offer the service from £20.

Industry experts have warned that summer holidays be thrown into further chaos by hours-long queues in airports created by onerous health checks at borders both upon arrival and departure. In response to lengthy waiting times, Heathrow Airport has pledge to lay on more staff and upgrade its passport e-gates, but such improvements will not be available until autumn 2021 at the earliest.

One of the key problems with the three tier “traffic light” system is that it cannot provide the certainty necessary to book holidays abroad very far in advance. The classification is guided by the analysis of factors including the country’s rate of infection, the prevalence of variants of concern, and the access to reliable scientific data and genomic sequencing. As a result, countries can move rapidly between the lists, in both directions; Portugal had only been added to the green list for a few weeks before being removed. The Nepal variant spreading in Europe is also currently making the headlines, threatening the green list’s expansion.

Towards a global understanding around Covid-19 certificates?

Before booking a trip to a country on the green list, British travellers must consider the entry requirements of their destinations, as well as the requirements for their arrival back in the UK.

The European Union has implemented a digital certificates system; travellers demonstrating vaccination, a recent negative PCR test or immunity from past infections are exempt from travel restrictions within the EU. If they succeed in reaching an agreement with the UK, British tourists could enjoy European trips as the continent’s restrictions are due to be lifted by the end of the month. Nevertheless, individual EU member states can still set their own rules when facing a deteriorating health situation or a new variant. For example, France and Austria recently tightened restrictions to prevent the Delta variant detected in India from spreading: a negative PCR test or a proof of vaccination is no longer sufficient to cross these borders. Over the summer, however, countries relying on tourism might not be so strict. Greece, Cyprus and Portugal are already open to British tourists, with Spain due to follow.

When it comes to crossing the Atlantic, the G7 summit taking place in London this month might answer that question. Boris Johnson will attempt to negotiate a quarantine-free air corridor with the US aiming at exempting vaccinated Americans from self-isolating upon arrival in the UK, in the hope of a reciprocal agreement for British citizens flying to the US. If he is successful, the current restrictions would be lifted in early July, allowing both British and American citizens to travel. However, the US administration has proven to be reluctant to lift the travel ban, arguing that prioritizing countries with a successful vaccination programme would send the wrong message to developing countries benefitting from the Covax scheme.

Holidaymakers must therefore remember that for travel to be possible, a reciprocal agreement between countries has to be reached. While Australia is on the UK’s green list, for example, limitations in place by the Australian government still prevents British nationals from landing on their territory. Furthermore, travel regulations are highlighting broader political motivations: the United Kingdom had to consider different variables, not least its hoped-for bilateral trade agreement, before placing India on the red list.

A digital and sustainable model of tourism ahead?

Electronic Covid passports along the lines of those currently operating in the EU might be the first illustration of a more digital model of tourism. As a result of Brexit, summer 2021 will be the last time that EU citizens will be able to travel to the UK with their identity cards (rather than their passports). Priti Patel confirmed that the new requirements would take effect from October onwards.

She also plans to introduce an Electronic Travel Authorization system, similar to the ESTA in the US. Also being considered by the EU, the ETA would see all visitors without a visa or immigration status charged a fee, and would be in place from 2025. As yet, the government has not given an indication of how much the system will cost each visitor.

A longer-term impact?

Ongoing restrictions and changeable regulatory requirements may mean that the travel industry does not recover to anything like 2019 levels of activity much before 2023, so pressures on the traditional approaches to mass-market tourism will remain even when the immediate trauma of the pandemic recedes. This may compound longer term trends of heightened environmental awareness about both the impact of air travel, and the impact of large numbers of visitors in potentially sensitive ecological areas.

Business travel will inevitably change as well, with virtual conferences becoming much more commonplace and, where necessary, longer trips blending work and leisure activities seen as the norm. Investors will want to pay close attention to such developments in order to stay ahead of what promises to be a rapidly evolving picture.

Share this content:

Watch webinar: Hospitality & the Leisure Economy – The Bounce Back

Covid 19 has had a huge impact on the UK’s hospitality and leisure sectors with businesses being forced to close for months. These sectors represented approximately 9% of UK GVA heading into the crisis and helping them bounce back quickly once it is safe to reopen services will be critical to kickstarting the UK’s economic recovery.

On Wednesday 24th February, WA brought together an expert panel, chaired by WA’s Marc Woolfson to discuss these issues and hear their perspectives and experiences:

Steve Double MP, Member of Parliament for St Austell and Newquay and chair of the Hospitality and Tourism APPG
Jonathan Neame, Chief Executive of Shepherd Neame brewery
Poppy Trowbrige, former Special Adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Our panel explored how the industry and government must work together to support the recovery of this important sector.

In the short-term, how long government support can remain in place.
In the medium-term, how we can transition back to normality and what measures are needed to ensure a long-term recovery plan.
In the long-term, what impact the crisis will have on consumer behaviour, and how industry should respond.

The discussion included a question and answer session with the audience.

To receive a link to the webinar’s video, please complete the form below.

Share this content:

Sustainable returns? Trends to look out for in ESG in 2021

Introduction

Evaluating investments on the basis of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) principles has been one of the most visible trends in the investment industry over the last few years. A far cry from the familiar, straightforward screening of traditional “sin stocks”, investors are increasingly demanding a much deeper read of a company’s ESG procedures – from staff welfare and internal governance to supply-chain risk and climate action – in order to assess the sustainability of their returns.

Across the world, the proportion of investors applying ESG principles to at least a quarter of their portfolios has risen sharply from 48% in 2017 to 75% in 2019. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought questions of sustainability to the fore, and looks set to reinforce the trend towards greater awareness and uptake of ESG principles. An estimated 200 new funds in the United States with an ESG investment mandate are expected to launch over the next three years, more than doubling the activity from the previous three years. ESG-mandated assets could grow almost three times as fast as their non-ESG counterparts in the coming years, so that they make up half of all professionally-managed investments by 2025.

This growing trend represents a clear opportunity for investors, yet the consensus of a number of studies and surveys is that the significant variety of approaches to ESG incorporation by investment management firms, regulators, and investors means that its full potential is not being realised. Below, we assess some of the key issues which investors will want to bear in mind when formulating their strategies.

Changing regulatory environments

Over 170 ESG-related regulatory measures have been proposed globally since 2018. This marked increase (it is more than the number of proposals from 2012 to 2018 combined) is a measure of the pace of change in this area and the level of regulatory focus upon it.

The traditional approach in the US, for instance, has been the SEC’s principles-based approach to company disclosure, which applies equally to ESG-disclosures as non-ESG. There, are, however, increasing calls for a more prescriptive approach for ESG, along more “European” lines.

In the EU, sustainability risk has been integrated into MiFID II, AIFMD and the UCITS framework. The changes will dictate how market participants and financial advisors must integrate ESG risks and opportunities in their processes as part of their duty to act in the best interest of clients. It is small wonder, therefore, that 97% of European institutional investors now say that they interested in ESG investments.

The UK is expected to retain an approach similar to that of the EU after Brexit. In December 2020, for instance, the FCA set out proposals to promote better disclosures on climate risk from premium-listed companies and will publish a consultation paper in early 2021 with a view to widening the scope of these measures. The Government is due to consult on measures in the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework, which would oblige large listed and private companies to disclose the risks to their businesses from climate change. Influential investors have also urged the Government to consult on the idea of introducing mandatory “say on climate” votes for shareholders at AGMs, somewhat akin to “say on pay” votes.

Whilst different regulators have taken different approaches, the overall trend is for more stringent ESG disclosure requirements, with ESG more firmly integrated into the investment advisory and decision-making process. International frameworks, including that drawn up by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) are gaining influence in developing consistency in ESG reporting across companies. Indeed, many companies have already identified the value placed on ESG transparency by investors, and are using these frameworks for reporting and disclosure which goes beyond the requirements set by regulators.

The role of technology

As the amount of ESG data available to investors has increased, so too has demand for analysing it. Spending on ESG content and indices rose by almost 50% between 2018 and 2020, indicating the scale of growth in the field.

The trend has been for investment management firms increasingly to develop their own capacity for gathering and processing data, but emerging technologies including Artificial Intelligence are likely to hold the key to extracting material ESG insights as the volume of data increases. AI engines can, for instance, be used to sift through unstructured data – which may not have formed part of a company’s formal disclosure – with a view to uncovering further material information. Such tools are potentially very powerful, but investors and investment managers would do well to keep an eye on the potential for regulation in this area, given the creation of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation in the UK and the EU’s forthcoming legislative proposals on AI.

Emerging technologies also have a large role to play in addressing environmental questions – and are thus a significant contributor to the “E” in “ESG”. Here, again, AI is an important field – with promising applications from energy monitoring and control systems to automation in agricultural production. Alongside it sit emerging technologies in energy generation, including carbon capture, small modular reactors and nuclear fusion.

The impact of Covid-19 on ESG trends

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has had a profound effect across the economy, with Governments playing much more interventionist roles in economic affairs than they might have envisaged pre-pandemic. The UK Government has spent almost £300bn on coronavirus measures, and the EU has agreed its €750bn Recovery Fund. Recovery plans unveiled to date – whether the UK’s Ten Point Plan or the EU’s Green Deal – have set clear ESG priorities and could, therefore, represent significant opportunities in sectors including clean energy, building technology and electric vehicles. In addition, an increase in demand for hygiene and diagnostic technologies may be a boost to the life sciences sector.

The logistical challenges which the pandemic has presented to many firms may bring about a renewed focus on supply-chain risk. Faced with a sudden shock, the vulnerabilities of many widely-dispersed supply chains were exposed, and this may galvanise efforts by companies to “reshore” some elements of production. To achieve this will likely require greater spending on advanced technologies including AI and robotics if moving production necessitates a move away from low-cost manufacturing elsewhere.

Perhaps the most obvious post-pandemic trend is the move towards remote working and digital commerce. For many, these have become embedded into daily life and will doubtless have long-standing social implications well into the future.

The opportunity for investors

The trend towards ESG investing is here to stay. It is an area of intense regulatory focus and the pandemic has heightened interest further still.

This growth represents a substantial opportunity for investors who can fully integrate ESG principles into their investment process. Such integration is likely to go beyond a mechanical exercise in completing an ESG “checklist”. Rather, it is likely to be a robust, thorough due-diligence process, illuminating past sustainability risks and providing a real picture of how target companies conduct their operations. Using the ever-increasing amounts of available data, and the evermore sophisticated technologies available to harness them, investors can gain deeper insights into their target and portfolio companies than ever before, and have the opportunity to generate genuinely sustainable returns.

Share this content:

How to capitalise on the Super Deduction tax benefit

This roundtable was originally published by Real Deals and features WA’s Head of Investor Services, Lizzie Wills. Please find the original here.

In the wake of the UK Spring Budget announcement, Rhiannon Kinghall Were, head of tax policy at Macfarlanes and Lizzie Wills, head of investor services at WA Communications, discuss how GPs can take advantage of the Super Deduction tax benefit.

Rhiannon Kinghall Were, head of tax policy at Macfarlanes

The Super Deduction was the surprise in the Spring Budget. There was the expectation around an increase in the rate of corporation tax, which has now increased to 25 per cent as the rumours suggested, and the hike in the rate has been tempered by this new investment incentive. The announced Super Deduction should be a significant incentive to businesses, because not only do they get a deduction for the full cost of investments made in the year of acquisition, but they also get an additional 30 per cent, making it a total of 130 per cent that can be deducted against profits. However, as the Super Deduction is only temporary in nature, companies will feel the full impact of the increase in the rate of corporation tax in 2023.

Unprecedented tax policy

From a global policy perspective, it is unusual that they’ve opted for this measure, I haven’t seen any other country go over 100 per cent before. By way of example, through the Super Deduction if a business makes an investment in plant and machinery of £10m then they get a deduction from their profits of £13m. That provides a potential tax saving of £2.47m.

In terms of where the Super Deduction will impact the PE industry, it will largely be the portfolio companies that invest heavily in ‘plant and machinery’ who will benefit. Many operators in manufacturing, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals and biotech, will be the largest benefactors. Interestingly when you look at total capital allowances claims the financial services sector takes third position, following manufacturing and retail.

Just what is classified as ‘plant and machinery’ isn’t actually defined in legislation but most tangible assets used in business should qualify, whether that’s robots on production lines in factories, electric vehicle charging points or simply computer equipment. If a company is buying new software platforms to be used in business, then that would also qualify. One thing to note is that these deductions do not extend to actually buying a property.

Act quickly

While the 130 per cent deduction is very novel, the extent to which companies will be able to benefit will depend on their circumstances and where they are in their investment cycle.

For instance, the Super Deduction can only be made on new contracts entered into after the budget date. If you had already signed contracts to purchase new equipment that investment would not qualify, as the investment was effectively made before the Super Deduction came into play.

The biggest limitation of the policy is the short window of time. The incentive is only available for two years, from 1 April 2021 through to the end of March 2023. It’s a short timeframe to make a big difference. There is also the caveat that it has to be new items, you cannot deduct the purchase of second-hand items which is significant for manufacturers where there is a good market for second-hand equipment and machinery. My advice to businesses would be to look down the pipeline of where the business is going, if there’s any investments or purchases that you can bring forward now is the time to do it.

Lizzie Wills, head of investor services at WA Communications

As political risk specialists, WA supports investors and their management teams to understand the often-contradictory messages coming out of government. The last twelve months have shown just how important it is to be able to read these signals, to interpret them, and to be in the strongest possible position to mitigate the risks and capitalise on the opportunities they represent. The Budget has been no exception, and the Super Deduction is a case in point. The announcement has raised several questions about the government’s intentions, not least: What does the announcement tell us about how the government plans to balance the books post-Corona? How is the Treasury going to pull off its ‘spend now, pay later’ promise but minimise the pain that both businesses and taxpayers face in the coming months and years.

Hey Big Spender

The Chancellor’s Budget announcement on the Super Deductions benefit was one of the few that had escaped the extensive media pre-briefing. The Chancellor was understandably keen to soften the ground for many of the planned announcements, not least that the government’s intention to increase corporation tax to 25 per cent in 2023.

Getting to the bottom of the Treasury’s thinking, at least on the face of it, is pretty straightforward. Through measures like the Super Deduction, the Treasury is hoping to supercharge businesses’ appetite to invest – to the tune of £25bn – and to spur on the post-Corona recovery.

It’s an eye-catching pitch, with businesses previously reticent to invest in new plant and machinery potentially now having the impetus to do so. The Government will also be hoping that as an added benefit it supports their headline domestic priority to ‘level up’, given its the big manufacturing firms located outside London and the South East that are most likely to benefit.

What’s the catch?

There are questions already about whether the Super Deduction is the best way for the Government to spend £25bn. Arguably the majority of the companies benefitting from the tax relief would be making these investments anyway. It will also add another layer of complexity to a tax regime that already runs to thousands of pages. Not only that, but there are strict eligibility criteria which means that not all firms will be able to access the relief, super deductions are only available to companies subject to corporation tax. Therefore those facing the 25 per cent rise in 2023. Sole traders, partnerships and LLPs are not eligible.

The deduction is also only available for new plant and machinery, rather than second-hand equipment. There may also be additional criteria that firms must meet if they are intending to purchase plant and machinery under a hire purchase agreement, which is pretty standard for SMEs.

A further restriction is the tightly defined period for accessing the deduction, meaning that some businesses might inadvertently miss out. Any investment committed to, ahead of 1 April 2021 won’t be eligible for the relief, and any delays between signing new contracts and incurring costs may have implications for what qualifies as tax deductible expenditure under the new scheme.

Mark Bryant, head of manufacturing at BGF

“Specific improvements in capital allowances that encourage manufacturers to invest in equipment will ultimately improve productivity and competitiveness both internationally and domestically. It is a positive move for the UK economy at large. For many businesses across the country that have faced severe disruption over the last year and are confronting the big challenge of rebuilding their balance sheets, there are still concerns that they may not have the flexibility to make significant capital investments at this time. It will be important to continually assess the extent to which smaller companies are utilising these new tax incentives.”

Simon Wax, partner at Buzzacott

“The main question for PE firms should be how much do tax deductions influence their buying decisions. Arguably the underlying performance of the business is more significant, however, paying less tax will clearly improve the cash flow forecasts for companies which could be another catalyst for PE houses to get more deals approved in the short term. Another opportunity for PE firms would be where they are looking at buy-and-build strategies that would require their portfolio investment companies to invest in order to see growth and realise returns.”

Andrew Aldridge, partner at Deepbridge Capital.

Growth-focused businesses will ultimately be the backbone of economic recovery. Investors will be working with portfolio companies to assist them in utilising Super Deduction and growth schemes which can assist with either short-term working capital or longer-term growth capital. The past twelve-months have seen unprecedented UK Government initiatives for supporting businesses which, coupled with longer-term initiatives such as the EIS, make the UK one of the best places to scale a business.”

Share this content:

Governments can find multinational digital companies taxing, can the OECD find a solution?

On 12^th October 2020 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released the details of a revolutionary global corporate tax plan designed to prevent tax avoidance by multinational enterprises (MNEs). It is the fruit of a collaboration between 135 countries under the direction of the OECD, an organisation representing 37 developed economies. It could transform how businesses pay tax and create a more level playing field for MNEs’ competitors.

Globalisation and the internet have radically changed taxation

As nations have grown economically closer, and digital transformation and ease of trade erodes the need for physical headquarters in each territory of operation, it has become easier than ever for companies to avoid tax. They can do so by shifting profits to low tax jurisdictions where they are legally headquartered. The OECD wants to boost governments’ ability to collect taxes from MNEs by changing global tax rules so that companies are no longer simply taxed depending on where they are based.

The OECD wants a global tax regime for corporations

The proposed rules fall under two separate “pillars”, both of which would only apply to businesses with revenues over €750mn. Pillar 1 is designed to prevent companies from paying very little tax in country A, even if they make vast revenues there, by moving profits to country B where they are headquartered. This is an accusation which has been levelled at companies from Amazon to Starbucks in the UK. Under the proposals, rather than profits only being taxed in country B, a portion of MNEs’ profits would be taxed in country A based on how much of their revenue they make there. This pillar would apply to companies providing “automated digital services” and to “consumer facing businesses”, the latter being everything from food retailers to consumer electronics businesses.

Pillar 2 is designed to stop MNEs being taxed at very low rates overall by effectively applying a global minimum tax rate. If a company pays very low corporate taxes because it is registered in a tax haven, jurisdictions where its subsidiaries are based would be permitted to collect taxes up to the global minimum.

The proposed rules may struggle to achieve political agreement

The group of 135 nations collaborating on this plan described the proposals as a “solid basis” for future rules, which is international organisation jargon for “we haven’t actually agreed anything yet”. Many issues remain outstanding, including what the global minimum should be and what proportion of profits should be shared out globally based on revenue location. Perhaps even more importantly the US has proposed that the Pillar 1 requirements should be optional, something which the UK and France are against. With Joe Biden now confirmed as the president-elect, global politics could be about to see a fundamental change. However, agreeing such a comprehensive change to global tax rules is unlikely to be easy, especially as many digital companies such as Amazon and Facebook are based in the US.

If they are implemented, they will have a big effect on MNEs and their competitors

What would the implications be for business if the politicians can reach agreement? For MNEs this is likely to mean additional regulatory burdens, as well as possibly an additional tax bill. However, the lack of tax paid by digital service companies has spurred numerous European countries, including the UK, to institute or propose digital services taxes on the revenues of online businesses. Compared to these unilateral taxes, both the OECD and companies including Facebook argue that a global tax would provide certainty and stability. It would also prevent trade wars resulting from unilateral action, which could cost more than 1% of global GDP according to the OECD and which would largely affect MNEs.

For competitors to MNEs, such as department stores like John Lewis who compete with multinational online retailers on everything from electronics to clothing, a global tax minimum would be a breakthrough. It would reduce the advantage MNEs get from minimising their tax burden, creating a more level playing field and a fairer and better functioning market.

Implementing what is effectively one of the first global taxes is unlikely to be straightforward but these changes would benefit most businesses, as well as, crucially, the public purse. As we reach the stage of political negotiations and these rules get closer to reality, MNEs and their competitors should be prepared to show they are listening to the concerns driving the rules and develop strategies to work with individual governments, including in the UK, on the implementation of the rules.

Share this content:

What the delayed Budget means for investors

Last week the Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that the Budget, due to take place in either late November or early December, was being postponed due to the economic uncertainty caused by the increase in cases of Covid-19. While no new date has been set for the Budget, it is now likely to be held by the end of March 2021. Crucially for the investment community, this means another six months before business taxes, including Capital Gains Tax (CGT), potentially go up.

The postponement of the Budget is useful for Rishi Sunak, giving him more time to assess the state of the economy, before setting out his plan to repair the public finances, but it is just as useful for investors. The extra four months allows them to take advantage of the current tax regime when planning their short-term investment and exit strategies.

The Chancellor has made an important political decision. Debt repayment is – for the time being at least – manageable, and aggressive tax rises will damage whatever economic recovery is underway. He’ll be disinclined to introduce sweeping tax increases across the board to address the deficit while this remains the case. However, he needs to give some red meat to the more fiscally conservative parts of the party, and that means Sunak may make a calculated decision to introduce targeted tax increases to begin the process of putting the country’s finances on a more sustainable footing.

A rise in CGT is a likely candidate. Prima facie, a rise in business taxes flies in the face of traditional Conservative neo-liberalism, but the party has painted itself into something of a corner by promising in its last manifesto not to raise personal taxes (income tax, National Insurance and VAT). The idea of abolishing the triple lock on pensions has also been stamped on by No.10, so the Chancellor’s room for manoeuvre is limited.

Capital Gains Tax

Should the Budget have gone ahead this autumn, investors would have only a very limited time period in which they could have disposed of assets without being subject to a new higher rate of CGT. While the Chancellor’s plans for CGT have not been finalised, there is the possibility rates could be increased in March so as to achieve parity with income tax bands, representing a significant increase in the tax liability for investors. Even if the Chancellor does not opt for parity with income tax bands, the likelihood is that CGT will increase. The delayed Budget has opened a window of opportunity for exits to take place ahead of the planned increase in CGT, providing considerable tax benefits to investors.

Over the longer-term, changes to CGT are also likely to have implications for carried interest payments. Currently taxed at 28%, any increase in CGT will bring tax rates for carried interest closer to income tax bands. While the timing of the Budget makes little difference to this issue, the six months in the run-up to the next Budget will afford investors the time to plan their tax affairs accordingly in line with a new higher rate of taxation.

Buy-to-let market

The increase in CGT will also have an impact on individual sectors. In particular, the prospect of increasing CGT in spring 2021 could motivate a sell-off of buy-to-let assets. While the housing market remains buoyant, house prices increased by 5% in the year to September 2020 according to Nationwide, the same is not true for rents. Hamptons International forecasts rents to fall nationally 1% this year and next, with London set for even greater reductions.

The delay to any increase in CGT will mean property owners can potentially take advantage of a housing market inflated by the Stamp Duty holiday while avoiding more punitive taxes down the line. Investors, however, will have to act quickly, with many property agents reporting that they are operating at full capacity, causing a lengthening of the time it takes to complete transactions.

The postponement of the Budget has given both investors and the government time to think. With the economy having been through one of the most tumultuous periods in living memory, there is little chance of things returning to normal any time soon. But for six months, things are staying as they were (fiscally speaking at least), and investors should use this time wisely.

Share this content:

Private equity – How to win friends and talk to government

Benjamin Franklin said: “It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.” There is truth in this for the private equity industry; much of its socially valuable contributions go largely unnoticed while its missteps are widely publicised and serve to tarnish the sector’s reputation. One need look no further than the Financial Times or The Telegraph (two publications not known for their hostility to free enterprise) to see regular criticism of private equity and the way it does business, especially its leveraged approach to buy-outs.

A recent Due Diligence column in the FT is a classic of the genre, setting out the regular critique of private equity in a discussion of the potential sale of The AA: “they buy companies, leverage them up, pay themselves juicy dividends and leave their targets over-indebted and far too vulnerable to the slightest shock, with little room for error.” Despite this somewhat crude account of private equity business practices, it has had cut through into the political sphere – although more so in the US than the UK. But where the US goes, the UK quickly follows.

Political criticism

In the United States, Senator and former presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren last year set out her Stop Wall Street Looting Act 2019, which squarely took aim at the private equity sector and many of its business practices. Included in the Act were 100% taxes on monitoring and transaction fees and bans on dividends for two years after a transaction, as well as forcing PE funds to share responsibility and liability for a target company’s debt and closing loopholes on carried interest. While the Act was not passed into law, the fact a serious presidential candidate proposed an all-out assault on the private equity industry demonstrates the strength of feeling with US politics.

In the UK, there has been little criticism of private equity from mainstream politicians, but Covid-19 and the increased scrutiny of businesses that will accompany the economic recovery could change this. In February of this year, criticism of private equity came from an unlikely source in the form of Guy Hands, founder of Terra Firma. Speaking at a conference on alternative investments, Hands claimed the industry was too insular and said that rather than caring about improving companies and creating jobs, instead “We tended to only talk about ourselves – the funds we raised and the pay cheques received.”

One might think if private equity has friends like these, who needs enemies? Fortunately for the sector, it does not have any high profile political detractors in the UK, yet, and crucially, private equity does have some friends within government. When it emerged that private equity-backed firms would be excluded from the CBILS and CLBILS schemes because their leveraged financial structures meant they fell foul of EU state aid rules, HM Treasury lobbied hard for exemptions for private equity-backed firms. Despite the Treasury being largely unsuccessful (exemptions were granted for smaller firms), its efforts show there are those in government who understand the value of private equity to the economy.

Managing the problem

To a large extent, private equity’s wider reputation problem is the result of availability bias. People, including politicians and policymakers, have a tendency to think that issues that come easily to mind occur more frequently than they do in reality. Private equity only makes it into the mainstream news following a high-profile business failure (often a distressed asset to begin with), while its successes are buried in trade publications or celebrated at industry awards evenings. As such, when influential people from outside the world of private equity come to form their views, they are much more likely to take a dim view of the sector as these negative stories come to mind much more easily.

Fortunately, private equity still has the opportunity to change this perception. With a significant number of businesses requiring injections of equity, and private equity sitting on a large amount of dry powder, the industry can play a key role in ensuring that many businesses can survive the downturn and become profitable once again. However, there is a risk this type of action could be branded as ‘vulture capitalism’ with private equity firms charged with sweeping up assets when they have no choice but to sell.

To mitigate this risk and demonstrate the value of private equity to the wider economy, private equity needs to make its case to government that it is a force for good. At a fundamental level, this would involve making clear to MPs and those within government what private equity brings to the table and the motivations behind its business model. Beyond this, the industry should explain to decisionmakers the vital contribution private equity has made to economic growth and building British businesses, and that the sector is responsible for the employment of millions of people. As the economic crisis begins to bite, private equity can use its resources and position to recalibrate its reputation. But it will have to do this quickly; a failure to get on the front foot is only likely to result in a solidifying of the sector’s already mixed reputation.

Share this content:

Distressed hospitality: What investors need to be thinking about

With high street names such as Café Rouge and Byron Burgers entering administration, investors will be weighing up their options and trying to understand whether there are bargains to be had.

High street restaurant chains were competing in a crowded market before the onset of the Covid crisis, and lockdown has tipped a number of firms into the red as they’ve struggled to access government support schemes. Over the long-term, investors will need to consider the extent to which the public’s appetite for high street casual dining will remain, particularly given the prospect of social distancing measures continuing for many months to come.

More immediately, there are three areas where government decision-making will have a significant impact on hospitality assets, which will need to be factored into commercial decision making by investors.

Commercial rents

Commercial rents continue to be a problem for hospitality assets, with lease agreements no longer reflecting the value properties operating under social distancing conditions. Many businesses have taken advantage on the government’s moratorium on commercial evictions and have been able to defer paying their rent, but this will no longer be a possibility from 1 October 2020 when the moratorium ends. From this date, businesses will either have to renegotiate their tenancies with landlords or start paying again if they don’t want to face eviction or winding-up petitions.

Further government interventions on the issue of commercial rents are likely, and it is one of HM Treasury’s top priorities, with Treasury officials especially concerned about wider contagion to the financial sector should the issue of firms not being able to pay their rent not be resolved. Options for the government include a subsidy scheme proposed by the British Property Federation and the British Retail Consortium. The Furloughed Space Grant Scheme would involve government grants to cover fixed property costs, with the level of subsidy determined by the fall in turnover experienced by a business. Action from the government in this area could be a massive boost to potential investors, as commercial rents are a significant burden for hospitality assets. It will need careful balancing by the government, but any reforms could be enough to put high street restaurants back investors’ menus.

Short-term measures

With Rishi Sunak set to make an economic statement tomorrow, measures to support the hospitality sector are likely to feature heavily in his attempt to kick-start the economy.

The government is increasingly concerned with protecting jobs as the furlough scheme is wound down and will be keen to save as many of the 3.2 million jobs in the hospitality sector as possible. Short-term measures could include a reduced rate of VAT for the hospitality sector as a means of stimulating demand, as well as a possible further extension to the business rates holiday for hospitality firms that is set to run until the end of the financial year in 2021.

Interventions of this kind will certainly be welcomed by the sector, and any reduction in operating costs will help stabilise a number of businesses. However, the big question mark for government is whether they are enough to persuade consumers who are concerned about the virus to venture out of their homes and start spending again. It could be that measures such as a VAT cut only end up helping customers who would have spent anyway, making little difference to overall demand and causing the government to miss out on much-needed tax revenue.

Longer-term support

Beyond the Chancellor’s economic statement, the government will carefully monitor the economic performance of hospitality businesses, and further economic support could be forthcoming in the autumn Budget should it be required.

This additional help could be in the form of reduced employer’s National Insurance Contributions or through wage subsidies for younger workers to help in the battle against unemployment. The government has won plaudits for its commitment to the economy since the start of the crisis, and investors may want to gamble that the Chancellor’s cheque book stays open. Going on the government’s actions so far, this might be a sound bet, but investors will have to judge carefully whether purchasing a hospitality asset is only viable if the government continues to offer the industry financial support.

Investors looking to get a taste of the hospitality sector face an unenviable task. Not only will they have to make a long-term prediction about consumer attitudes towards high street casual dining (during a pandemic), but also consider the extent to which the government will continue supporting the sector.

However, investors who take the plunge could get their just deserts. The market will undergo a long overdue natural thinning over the rest of the year and beyond and firms that can embrace new revenue streams such as online ordering and delivery could stake out a sustainable position on the UK’s high streets.

Share this content:

On the front foot: How the insurance sector can tackle reform and reputation

With all aspects of the insurance market currently facing the twin challenges of reform and reputation, the sector should take advantage of the delays to Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) action to get ahead of future market intervention and launch transformational change.

Pre-covid, change was on the horizon

The FCA launched an investigation into general insurance pricing, focusing on home and motor insurance in October 2018. The investigation was launched following campaigning against practices in the general insurance market, culminating in Citizens Advice making a super-complaint about loyalty pricing to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Concerns about treatment of vulnerable customers, in addition to the transparency of insurance premiums and the ‘loyalty penalty’, where customers face higher charges for remaining with their provider over the long term, were cited by the CMA and FCA prior to the launch of the investigation. The final report was due to be published in Q1 2020 but has been delayed, along with the majority of its open investigations, to “beyond June 2020” due to coronavirus. With the FCA planning significant reforms, insurers should use the extra time to adapt their business models to minimise the impact of the measures when they are eventually introduced.

On 4 October 2019, the FCA published the interim report of its market study into the pricing of home and motor insurance. The report concluded that customers who do not switch insurers regularly pay more for cover, but that many firms have introduced significant barriers to switching, suppressing competition in the sector. Interventionist remedies are likely to be on the way, with the FCA currently considering a ban on auto-renewal of contracts, alongside a requirement to put all customers on the best value plan available to them. Another option currently under discussion is limiting or banning margin optimisation, or only allowing new business discounts where the discount is transparent and fully removed after one year.

Intervention in pricing practices could have significant consequences for the insurance industry. Auto-renew policies in particular, where insurers’ pricing practices mean premiums are raised year on year at the point of renewal, are likely to be targeted. The consequences for the industry are likely to be a decline in renewal rates and margins; a reduction in customer renewal tenures; a decline in new business discounting; and a disruption of the broker market.

For insurers that can pivot to a business model based on driving new business, rather than retaining existing clients through current structures, the transition will bring opportunities to increase market share at the expense of more slow-moving players. However, the impact of coronavirus has also brought fresh challenges to the sector that will have to be addressed.

Covid is likely to compound the need for reform in the insurance sector

The coronavirus pandemic has led to widespread criticism of the insurance sector across multiple specialisms. With the FCA already clear that the sector was not working well for consumers, issues around miscommunication of business interruption insurance and travel insurance coverage will only serve to drive home that perception. While there is no suggestion the insurance sector is running outside the boundaries of current regulatory standards, questions are arising over whether the sector should be more tightly regulated than first thought.

The FCA is currently taking a test case to the Supreme Court to provide legal clarity on business interruption insurance. The FCA previously wrote to insurers in April explaining that it believes most business interruption policies do not provide cover for losses related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Its decision to seek legal clarity is likely driven by the extensive public criticism of insurers during the pandemic, and the number of businesses currently taking their own legal action. While it is likely the FCA’s instincts on the legality of insurers behaviour will be proved right, this is unlikely to exempt the sector from significant reputational damage, particularly as businesses continue to struggle with the economic effects of the pandemic.

The insurance sector should be mindful of the reputational challenges it faces

With legal cases and negative news coverage piling up, insurers are going to need to do more than simply restate the terms of insurance policies if they wish to avoid longstanding reputational damage to the sector. The ongoing debate over the legalities of denying business interruption insurance payouts to businesses is ongoing, however, the growing perception of the sector is increasingly of one that is not focused on consumers.

Insurers are aware of the mounting challenges. Two-thirds of insurers surveyed in May 2020 by FWD Research believe that the industry has damaged its reputation through its coronavirus response. The question now is what the sector can do about it. Coronavirus has exposed a significant expectation gap between insurers and their customers, compounded by a traditionally hands-off approach to customer service and auto-renew policies that require minimal customer engagement.

Preparation is key to minimizing the impact of change

The FCA has made it clear that it is willing to enact transformational reforms on the insurance sector that will dramatically increase transparency and, for some insurers, fundamentally alter the way in which they do business. While the coronavirus pandemic may have delayed the publication of the FCA’s final rulings, insurers should not take this as an indication that the FCA has lost interest and instead begin preparing now for the likely changes that will be enacted.

The negative media coverage during the pandemic is likely to focus political and regulatory attention on the insurance industry once again. Insurers should prepare now for more scrutiny going forward and should consider developing a targeted communications plan to demonstrate that they have listened to the concerns raised over the past few months, and what they will do to help lead change in the industry going forward.

Share this content:

Connect Four: Choices for fiscal stimulus and what it means for investors

For an unabridged version of this article please visit Real Deals.

With the economy facing its worst crisis in generations and unemployment figures increasing at an alarming rate, the government is preparing a number of measures to help the economy recover. The Chancellor Rishi Sunak will deliver a ‘fiscal event’ in July, which will set out the immediate steps the government is taking to boost the economy. It is expected that a full Budget will follow in the autumn once the government has a better idea of which parts of the economy are in need of further support.

With rumours the government is considering a temporary decrease in VAT, we take a look at four potential measures the government could implement to kick-start the economy and what they would mean for investors:

A temporary VAT cut

Top among the Treasury’s options is a temporary cut to the rate of VAT. The thinking behind this move is that it could encourage a nervous public to start spending in shops, restaurants and pubs. The move would be good for consumers and investors alike, encouraging spending and increasing the revenues of firms hit hardest by the crisis.

The problem with the plan is that it’s expensive and it might not work. If people aren’t spending because they are scared of contracting or spreading the virus, a small adjustment to VAT is unlikely to encourage them to start spending. Also, the Institute of Economic Affairs estimated the government loses £7 billion of revenue for every percentage point it reduces VAT. That is a lot of revenue for the government to give up on a plan that could failwhen concerns about debt and the deficit are mounting.

Bringing forward infrastructure spending

Spending on infrastructure is a good old fashioned way to get the economy moving. Officials in Downing Street are keen to use the delayed National Infrastructure Strategy, worth around £100 billion, as part of an economic stimulus with them hoping to get projects started as soon as possible. This is positive news for infrastructure supply chain investors, as well as for those with assets in the north of England and Midlands where much of the spending is expected to be targeted to shore up support in seats won by the Conservatives in December 2019.

While infrastructure spending can help the economy recover, to do so, it needs to happen soon. However, large projects that will do the most to stimulate the economy are the most difficult to start quickly, often taking years to get off the ground. The government is searching for projects that can be completed in 18 months, but even these smaller projects will struggle with the twin problems that there is a shortage of skills for many of the jobs the projects would create and that the government’s own planning rules are making it difficult to start projects quickly.

Cutting National Insurance Contributions (NICs)

To try to prevent an unemployment crisis, the government is considering a cut to employer’s NICs, or more radically implementing a temporary NIC holiday where employers don’t have to pay NICs on newly hired employees. After employees’ wages, employer’s NICs are the biggest cost to firms, reducing this cost would make it cheaper for firms to hire new employees and keep furloughed workers on the payroll.

A cut to employer’s NIC would be popular with employers and investors alike and has been endorsed by the former Chancellor Sajid Javid. However, if the combination of social distancing requirements and Covid-19 induced changes to consumer behaviour means that millions of jobs don’t exist anymore, a cut to employer’s NICs will do little to stem the tide of unemployment. The UK’s labour market is flexible enough to reallocate workers in these non-sustainable jobs to new roles, but this will not happen quickly. Also, while uncertainty over how long we have to live with the virus remains, businesses will not know which jobs will be viable over the long-term.

Cutting Stamp Duty

An often criticised tax, Stamp Duty has been claimed to create friction in the housing market, preventing growing families move home and stopping older people from downsizing. By cutting Stamp Duty, Rishi Sunak would be able to offer a significant boost to the home moving sector which would in turn increase spending in other areas, as well as create a more flexible labour market.

Think tanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies and Onward have recently called for reforms to Stamp Duty, with the latter suggesting Stamp Duty should be abolished for all homes worth less than £500,000. Choosing to limit the Stamp Duty cut to homes valued at less than £500,000 would make sure that the benefit of the cut is aimed away from the most well off individuals and would limit losses to the Treasury. Such a cut would benefit investors involved in the housing market, as well as those with assets in the home improvement and retail sectors, given that home moving is a stimulus to demand in these sectors.

There are no easy answers for the Chancellor, but there are certainly changes that could be made to help individual parts of the economy. While some of the options available will be costly, the government is likely to take the risk given the current exceptional circumstances. The unfortunate reality for the government is that the one thing that would allow the economy to grow unhindered is for the virus to be completely contained, but there is little sign of that occurring any time soon.

Share this content:

Under the microscope: M&A faces new post-Covid world

As most European countries appear to have passed through the peak of the coronavirus pandemic, governments have turned their attention to how to bring the economy back to life. It is becoming clear across all countries affected by the virus that one of the consequences of lockdown will be a wave of businesses entering administration or facing a fundamental restructuring of their operations.

Governments, ranging from populists in Poland and India to fiscal conservatives in Germany, are concerned that the number of businesses looking for new ownership will lead to foreign buyers acquiring assets in bulk. To tackle this, they have turned to protectionist policies to keep prospective buyers out.

Protectionist tendencies were becoming more common before the coronavirus pandemic

The economic policy response to coronavirus is likely to continue to vary significantly across the Eurozone and beyond. However, one emerging trend is the number of countries, including the UK, that are introducing legislation designed to increase scrutiny of M&A transactions on national security grounds. Primarily designed to exclude foreign buyers from purchasing assets of national importance while prices are lowered by the coronavirus pandemic, the wider effects of these laws may make cross border M&A a more complex task for all investors in the future.

The willingness of governments to intervene in M&A has been increasing in recent years. Australia and the United States have been particularly interventionist and have been hawkish on the issue of Chinese investment, both banning Huawei from helping build 5G networks. Although the UK to date has not blocked an M&A transaction on national security grounds, in recent years the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and UK government has scrutinised an increasing number of transactions on national security grounds involving various kinds of acquirer, including financial investors. Acquisitions of Cobham, Northern Aerospace and satellite operator Inmarsat have all been investigated by the CMA and the transactions approved. In all instances, the acquirer offered several legally binding assurances to the government before the deal was approved.

The government is taking rapid action to protect strategic industries

Here in the UK, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Alok Sharma and Dominic Raab are currently developing new legislation that would make it easier for the government to intervene in M&A transactions on national security grounds. In the short term, amendments will be put forward to protect UK assets during the coronavirus pandemic, however, a more detailed plan for a new, more interventionist takeover system is being drawn up and will be presented to Parliament before Summer recess.

Two new proposals already tabled in Parliament will make it tougher for foreign buyers to acquire any assets related to the nation’s healthcare self-sufficiency and, separately, artificial intelligence and other tech. One amendment would drop the £1 million revenue threshold currently in place for screening takeover targets in AI and other areas that pertain to national security. This would allow the government to intervene in the takeover of loss-making start-ups developing medicines or technology of national interest. The other amendment will widen the government definition of sectors critical to national security to include the food and drink sector for the first time.

Crucially, neither of these amendments specify what kinds of investors will be targeted under the new legislation. While concern may rest primarily with state-owned buyers, investors should be mindful that the CMA has instigated action against several US funds in recent years, including in the sale of Cobham and Inmarsat indicating the importance of the asset will take precedence over the nationality of the buyers.

A new long term takeover regime will change how investors should approach UK assets

The new takeover regime being devised would require UK businesses to declare when a foreign company tries to buy more than 25% of its shares, assets or intellectual property. The plans are significantly more stringent than those drawn up under a similar scheme considered by Theresa May’s government, under which companies would have been expected to notify the government of takeovers voluntarily.

Reporting will only be required for businesses where a takeover would pose a risk that it could give a foreign company or hostile state the power to undermine Britain’s national security through disruption, espionage, or by using “inappropriate leverage.” The significance of this legislation will be determined by how this risk is defined. Legislation planned under Theresa May used an incredibly broad definition, which, if replicated, would allow any secretary of state to intervene in any M&A transaction if they were concerned about the security implication.

The sectors most likely to be affected are civil nuclear, communications, defence, energy and transport, however compulsory reporting of transactions would likely have the effect of slowing the pace of deals across all sectors. Investors, whether they deal with sensitive assets or not, are likely to have to get used to greater government interest in their activities, an increased reporting burden, and potentially greater media scrutiny of their activities as the government makes its investigations public.

Change in the EU brings challenges and renewed opportunity

Countries across Europe are also acting. Margrethe Vestager, EU Competition Commissioner and Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, has encouraged EU states to take action to prevent foreign takeovers. Describing the protection of EU businesses from takeovers as a “top priority,” Vestager has effectively encouraged states to act against any takeovers deemed to be a cause for concern. While this fear relates primarily to Chinese investors amid concerns about intellectual property and national security, the political unwillingness to single out the Chinese for special restrictions could risk creating significant collateral damage. Plans put forward by the Commission would exclude all state owned buyers, potentially eliminating some of the competition for assets created by the increasing activity of Middle Eastern and Asian funds in Europe.

Poland’s populist government is among those planning changes. Legislation is currently being drawn up to allow regulators to block non-EU companies from taking stakes of more than 10% in businesses deemed to be providing critical infrastructure, goods or services for two years. This more stringent block on foreign investment is in part due to the comparative affordability and availability of Polish businesses. 30 years on from the end of communism in Poland, those who have built successful businesses are beginning to reach retirement age, while a drop in the value of the zloty has also pushed prices lower for foreign buyers.

The issue for investors comes back to Brexit. Much of the proposed legislation would impose additional restrictions on all non-EU countries. Proposals, such as those put forward by the Dutch government, would ensure governments could halt companies from buying EU competitors at inflated prices or undercutting them with artificially low selling prices. The Spanish government, meanwhile, is proposing that non-EEA investments larger than 10% in key domestic assets in the “strategic industries” such as infrastructure, technology and media be authorised by the Spanish government. The European Commission would also have the authority to demand greater transparency in foreign companies’ accounts.

These restrictions will soon apply to the UK, with the true impact likely to be determined by the extent to which the UK chooses to diverge from EU law relating to financial services. It may be possible to negotiate the UK’s exclusion from these additional barriers to investment if the UK and EU agree to a close trading relationship for the financial services sector. This would be unlikely to be completed by the time the UK leaves the transition period on 31 December and negotiations around the full financial services future relationship are likely to take years to complete due to their complexity.

Much of the legislation remains in draft phase across the EU and the UK as politicians continue to prioritise the immediate economic and health challenges and much will depend on whether governments can pursue such ambitious regulatory change in the coming months. If these laws do make it onto statute books, investors willing to deal with the additional bureaucratic burden may find greater choice and potentially lower competition for assets in areas of “national interest.” Regardless of sector, as the size of government increases and its post-Covid appetite for intervention grows, investors will need to adapt to greater government engagement in the future.

Share this content:

Beyond the Future Fund: What it means for VCTs

Nearly two weeks ago, HM Treasury launched the Future Fund, the latest in a series of schemes to support businesses through the economic crisis brought on by Covid-19 and lockdown. Having been overlooked by the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, start-ups are now eligible for government financial assistance via the Future Fund. While this funding will help many pre-profit firms through the immediate disruption, it could also present opportunities for VCTs down the line.

The Future Fund, administered by the British Business Bank (BBB), provides an initial £250 million in funding to UK start-ups. Through the Fund, firms have access to convertible loans of between £125,000 and £5 million as long as government investment is matched by third-party investors. Funding is offered in the form of a convertible loan, with no requirement that companies make regular payments; the convertible loans will convert into equity at the next funding round. Firms must have raised at least £250,000 in third-party equity investment over the last five years to be eligible for future fund investment.

As with almost every government intervention since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Future Fund has been created against a very tight timetable which led to initial criticism of the scheme on the grounds it was not compatible with the existing Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS). The EIS is a government scheme to help early-stage firms raise money by offering tax reliefs to individual investors that buy shares in a company, but the EIS could only be made compatible with the Future Fund following new legislation. Having been keen to avoid further delays to launching the Future Fund, the government decided to exclude the EIS; this decision led one investor to claim: “If it’s not EIS-able, the scheme just doesn’t work.”

Despite this criticism, there has been significant take-up of the government’s offer of matched funding through the Future Fund, with the BBB receiving requests for £515 million of funding on the day of launch. Funding is being allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, with those firms that have all their application materials in order at the front of the queue to receive a slice of the £250 million on offer. However, the BBB has indicated it is confident the Treasury will increase the size of the Future Fund following the strong initial response from investors, and an announcement setting out additional funding is likely to be made soon.

The popularity of the Future Fund may have dispelled fears prompted by its lack of compatibility with the EIS, but Katherine Griffiths, writing in The Times, points out there are issues with the Future Fund that will only be realised once the crisis has passed. Griffiths argues that the way the Future Fund is set up means that there will inevitably be a battle for control of the business at some point because “the government and its matching investors will decide whether to convert the loan into equity at the end of the term, removing significant freedom from the founders.”

While this may be suboptimal for founders, it could be a bonus for VCTs. In the event the government does convert loans to equity, it will have little interest in holding the equity stakes for a long period of time, particularly given the coming pressures on the government’s balance sheet. When the government does choose to sell, it will provide investors with the opportunity to take equity in firms that have received a healthy dose of government funding to help them to the position they are in. While investors will have to pay government for the privilege, it is possible the Future Fund may be responsible for a wave of high-growth firms coming to market at the same time, ready for VCTs to use their knowledge and expertise to propel them to further growth.

Share this content:

Money matters

In 2017 there was a huge fiscal gulf between the two main parties. Labour was the party of tax and spend and the Tories the party of fiscal conservatism. It was an election of opposites.

Fast forward two-and-a-half years and the scale of spending announcements by BOTH parties is already eye watering by anybody’s measure. Notwithstanding Labour’s unexpected and radical announcement to nationalise Openreach, the Conservatives are opening their own spending floodgates.

Why have the Conservatives seemingly ditched fiscal rectitude, how could this play out over the course of the campaign, and what could it mean for businesses after the dust of the election has settled?

Two factors have compelled the Conservatives to change tac: a decade of austerity and the success of Labour in shifting the battleground on which they must fight.

Jeremy Corbyn lost in 2017, but he made up considerable ground over the course of the campaign by appealing to an electorate fed-up after almost a decade of cuts. Theresa May had a poll lead of around 20% when the starting whistle for the election was blown. This had narrowed to 2.5% by polling day with the biggest gains made in the final half of the campaign. Corbyn’s personal poll ratings may be worse than rock bottom at -60 percent, and the wider problems of May’s campaigns are well known, but Labour’s campaigning capability is not underestimated by the Conservatives.

This election was called because of Brexit, but the Conservatives knew that Labour would again look to move the focus back on to the domestic agenda. Hence the mantra of the Conservative campaign has been ‘Get Brexit Done’, while a steady number of booming funding announcements has been the resounding drumbeat against which it has been sung.

Conservative Campaign Headquarters is hoping that this harmonious combination will be music to the ears of voters fed up of Brexit and austerity and rousing enough to win traditionally Labour seats necessary for a majority.

The challenge is that by taking on Labour on domestic issues, the Conservatives have opened themselves up to an attack line of ‘it’s too little too late’. Johnson has sought to distance his four-month-old Government from those of May and Cameron, but the sheer scale of funding announcements has exposed other flanks that Labour has sought to capitalise on.

In 2017 Labour made a big deal about its manifesto being costed and the Conservatives failing to do their homework. It was a punch that didn’t land as hard as it could have because the Conservative manifesto was so light on the draw down from the public purse compared to Labour. This time round Labour is doing the same thing and it could be much more painful as Corbyn and McDonnell will again argue that Johnson does not care about the detail and cannot be trusted to honour commitments.

We are only two weeks into a six-week campaign, and we haven’t even got to the manifestos themselves (Labour’s is expected next week). For companies planning for the future it will be critical to understand how the details of what has already been pledged fits together into a wider picture of a mandate for government.

The dearth of funding, and arguably policy as a consequence, looks like it is coming to an end. This will present opportunities and risks for businesses across all areas of the economy, whether they operate in energy or education, transport or telecoms, financial services or food technology. Those businesses that have early insight into what could come their way, and when, over the course of the next five years from a government of any primary (or secondary) colour will be best placed to engage, adapt and succeed.

For comprehensive analysis on what the manifestos could mean for your business and advice on what to do next, please contact the WA Comms team at contact@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

A taxing question: is globalisation compatible with national sovereignty?

Amid the political turmoil surrounding Brexit, you would be forgiven for missing the recent row about British Crown Dependencies and financial transparency. On 4 March, the House of Commons was due to vote on the Financial Services Bill, a piece of legislation concerning the regulation of financial services in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit. However, the government pulled the bill at the last minute because they feared that they would be defeated on an amendment requiring Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to introduce public registers detailing who owns companies registered there.

The government’s move to delay the bill was not just an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of yet another defeat; it was also done to avert something much more serious – a constitutional crisis. Legislation passed in Westminster does not usually apply to Crown Dependencies, and their consent typically accompanies legislation that does apply. The UK government does have the power to impose legislation on the Crown Dependencies as a last resort, but this power is seldom used and would represent a break with convention. As such, any attempt by Westminster to interfere in the domestic matters of Crown Dependencies without their consent could present the UK with yet another constitutional headache.

Following the release of the Paradise Papers in 2017, in which Jersey and the Isle of Man featured prominently, there has been an increased focus on the Crown Dependencies and the role they play in facilitating tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering. The move to force the islands to publish details of anyone owning more than 25 per cent of a company registered there aims to increase transparency. In response, the dependencies argue that they are already committed to transparency and provide ownership details to law enforcement and tax authorities within 24 hours of a request.

However, while stricter rules on financial transparency in the Crown Dependencies may make it more difficult for some to engage in activities that are either illegal or deprive governments of revenue, the debate masks an even greater problem: tax. Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man all have a standard corporation tax of zero per cent, with some higher rates (but not greater than 20 per cent) applicable to firms in certain industries, for example, Jersey charges financial services companies ten per cent corporation tax. The rate of corporation tax in the UK is currently 19 per cent and set to fall to 18 per cent by 2020. The average corporate tax rate in the EU is 22.5 per cent; France has the highest corporation tax at 34.4 per cent and Hungary the lowest with nine per cent.

The advantageous corporate tax rates available in the Crown Dependencies have played a large role in attracting companies to register there; as of December 2018, collectively they were home to 76,000 companies. This amounts to one business for every three residents, whereas the UK has one firm for every 11 residents. In 2017, the EU placed the Crown Dependencies on a ‘grey list’ of jurisdictions that had committed to reform their tax structures to avoid being branded ‘tax havens’. The EU is particularly concerned that firms route profits via the Crown Dependencies to avoid paying taxes in EU member states, weakening the tax base in those countries. In response, the Crown Dependencies have introduced stricter requirements on businesses to prove they are truly resident in either Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man. However, it is unlikely the new regulations will significantly reduce the number of firms registered in Crown Dependencies.

The Crown Dependencies are not the only entities to have drawn the attention of the EU over their corporate tax rates. Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 12.5 per cent, a rate that has encouraged companies such as Apple and Google to base their operations there. In January, the European Commission published a proposal to remove national vetoes of tax matters and to use qualified majority voting instead. The move has been strongly opposed by the Irish government, on the basis that a new voting system will remove Ireland’s ability to set corporation tax rates at the level it wishes.

At heart, the debate about financial transparency and tax comes back to one question: how can national sovereignty be reconciled with a globalised economy? Governments, in competition with each other to attract businesses, have an incentive to lower taxes and loosen regulations. The only way to avoid this potentially damaging race to the bottom is global cooperation, either voluntary or enforced. However, the former may not be possible because of the incentives faced by governments, and the latter would involve countries voluntarily giving up power over tax policy.

The UK is finding out first-hand that determining the ‘optimal’ amount of sovereignty is a tricky business, but it is a question that many more countries will have to grapple with in the near future. Globalisation has made it easier for capital to cross international borders, while public opinion concerning which decisions should be made at the level of the nation-state has remained relatively static. Harmonised tax and regulatory systems may win the economic argument, but as the political landscape confronts a more globalised world, it’s not always the economy, stupid.

Share this content:

Archive for the ‘Finance’ Category

Saving today, but more spending likely in the autumn

Charting a low-tax course

The UK’s FinTech sector is having its time in the sun.

Key barriers facing travellers

Towards a global understanding around Covid-19 certificates?

A digital and sustainable model of tourism ahead?

A longer-term impact?

Globalisation and the internet have radically changed taxation

The OECD wants a global tax regime for corporations

The proposed rules may struggle to achieve political agreement

If they are implemented, they will have a big effect on MNEs and their competitors

Political criticism

Managing the problem

Commercial rents

Short-term measures

Longer-term support

Register for insights

Sign Up