(Source: Investec)
HR leaders in UK financial services firms are finding themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. Here, Steve Girdler, Managing Director EMEA at HireRight, looks at the future of FS firms in the UK and discusses the issue of skill shortage and migration of business.
On the one hand, the financial services (FS) sector is heavily reliant on the skills, diverse experience and local knowledge of the European workers who help make London a thriving international financial centre – a talent pool that’s at serious risk of drying up post-Brexit.
On the other hand, London’s historic advantages, which extend beyond its access to talent – factors like specialised infrastructure and even its geographical position between mainland Europe and the US – make it very hard for firms to conceive of a finance hub anywhere else in the continent that could rival the City, at least in the short term.
It is now a delicate balancing act, as firms look at hedging their bets to safeguard themselves against the potential risks of leaving the EU, while also keeping one foot firmly in the UK. With the challenge very much at the feet of HR departments, the approach taken over the months ahead will not only help to define what the future looks like but also determine how successfully and profitably their firms navigate through it.
Navigating the storm
Recent research from Deloitte shows that 47% of highly skilled UK workers – the lifeblood of the financial sector in London – are planning to quit the UK in the wake of Brexit. Inevitably, being highly skilled also means being highly sought after and these workers are not short of options if their future in the UK exceeds their appetite for risk and uncertainty.
But amid the storm clouds gathering over the City, there remain a few rays of sunshine. A recent study we conducted among over 2,500 HR leads around the world found that in the UK’s financial services sector, optimism remains. Almost two thirds (63%) of HR teams within UK FS firms expect their workforce to grow in the coming year. In contrast, only 4% are even discussing stopping recruitment in the UK in reaction to Brexit.
How not to gamble on the future
However, hiring in the UK will inevitably become more complicated as the government starts to dig into the specifics around which regulations to hold onto and which to scrap. This will be needed to keep us suitably in line with best practice on the continent, and identify what is likely to be tweaked to give the UK greater global appeal. These aren’t questions that it’s wise or even safe to try to assume answers to, because getting it wrong could prove costly.
Instead, a lot of companies are taking a middle approach, by trying to walk the line between cost efficiencies and covering all eventualities. A good example is the increase in UK FS giants opening up satellite units with head office potential in places like Frankfurt. In the current regulatory environment, it can take as long as two years to get an office fully functional in some European markets, so waiting to see what happens isn’t an option. If the UK becomes less hospitable, the escape route has been readied. If not, then the loss is limited to the short term maintenance of an additional office. Expensive, but not a disaster.
For HR teams the challenge is even more complicated. Reining in hiring of European workers may seem like the safe option to offset risk, but doing so en masse would bottom out the jobs market and speed up the exit of those talented foreign nationals. On the other hand, leaving themselves too reliant on the skills of non-UK workers comes with its own risks, especially if any form of “hard Brexit” becomes a reality.
No margin for error
One thing that’s immediately apparent is that any hires that are made need to be as risk free as possible, which means two things: trusting a candidate’s credentials – their ability to do the job honestly, fairly and diligently – and remaining compliant whatever the situation.
This calls for a high level of due diligence to be performed on all significant hires, or indeed anyone with access to sensitive information. Whichever way the regulation goes, backtracking from the recent Senior Managers Regime, where all senior staff must be thoroughly vetted, seems unlikely.
However, compliance with the FCA is only part of the picture. With budgets stretched by policies trying to offset risk, and growth restrained by uncertainty, a costly reputational scandal becomes an even greater concern, even if it’s not accompanied by a hefty fine.
A fork in the road
It’s going to be difficult for firms to know what the best course of action is with so much uncertainty ahead and no obvious stability on the radar. To come out the other side in the best shape, they need to forecast ahead to the regulatory landscape over the next few years.
But whether the UK develops its own unique position as a regulatory pioneer – as has been the case within the EU – or whether it aims to make itself more competitive by relaxing regulations, maintaining security precautions around the individuals at the top is one thing that’s almost guaranteed. Removing these measures would directly make banks more susceptible to malpractice, scandal and fraud, at a time when the UK is more worried than ever about its international reputation as a “strong and stable” finance hub.
Below Finance Monthly hears from Peter Snelling, principal systems engineer at leader in analytics, SAS, who has various ideas on border management that the UK and EU should look to approach.
This, and the more outward looking post-Brexit era we're facing, are just two reasons why I believe a different approach to border management, and indeed many of the activities of the Home Office and Customs, would transform efficiency. With the following capabilities in place, we’ll create a future where the departments can rate and prioritise risks in real-time, as they change, and take pre-emptive action, rather than reactive. As an example, let's apply the following ideas to the challenges of smuggling and trafficking.
The answer’s in the data
One of the major improvements the border agencies can make is to apply advanced, predictive analytics and deploy real-time risk-scoring models. Building them on historical data allows strategists and front-line operatives to apply the models’ learnings to enhance their own experience and strategies.
The alerts raised by these models can then be visualised as networks, timelines and maps – and enhanced with contextual information and intelligence. Applied in this way resources can be better managed and frontline staff can interdict high risk goods or people promptly. As importantly, low-risk goods and people can be processed far more swiftly. To find the needle it's sometimes easiest to reduce the size of the haystack.
Support that capability with what-if scenario testing, and the border agencies within Home Office and HMRC – and indeed other central government organisations – will be able to model different decisions and predict their outcomes against their cost and relative merit.
A winning combination: efficiency, accuracy, affordability
However, with many millions of people and shipments moving in and out of the UK every year, some people will wonder how quickly all this analysis can happen. The answer: In a matter of minutes. Certainly, with SAS. That’s because our analytics engine is made for the big data age and can screen billions of rows of data per second.
If your next question is, "Can the analysis be thorough at speed?" the answer is a resounding yes. Take global banking giant HSBC as an example. You’ll see that SAS anti-fraud analytics screens millions of debit and credit card transactions around the world, every day. Consider the fallout you may have experienced from just one personal experience of card fraud, and you’ll know what an incredibly value-generating capability this is - both on a human level and a financial one.
For the Home Office and Customs to achieve their efficiency targets and improve operational effectiveness, advanced analytics and visualization solutions have become essential.
Craig James, CEO of Neopay, believes the financial sector must remain priority for Brexit negotiations. Below he explains to Finance Monthly why.
It is now 13 months since the UK voted to leave the EU.
With Brexit negotiations underway and Britain’s political position now more uncertain following June’s general election result, the impact for European business and finance remains similarly uncertain.
Much has been made of the fear that a United Kingdom outside of the EU’s single market would suffer economically, and that may be true – at least in the short term.
But it is also the case that losing the world’s fifth largest economy would be detrimental to the EU, particularly as political uncertainty and the instability of the Euro continues to cause disruption to Europe’s collective economy.
Recently, it was reported that a delegation from the City of London, led by former City minister Mark Hoban, had visited Brussels – independent of the government – to lay out a plan for a future trade deal between the UK and the 27-nation bloc.
The group, it was claimed, was particularly concerned about preserving the financial sector’s relationship with the single market, especially when it comes to “passporting”, the current system which enables businesses to export and import financial services under one licence.
Costly restructure
It is in the UK’s and EU’s best interests that a mutual arrangement continues after Brexit, and is something the government needs to focus on as it is something that is very achievable – and a likely outcome of negotiations.
If the UK is outside of the single market, that automatically puts an end to current passport rules, and while this could be detrimental to Britain, it also presents a problem for the EU’s financial market.
Mark Hoban is right to say that it would cost the EU if the UK leaves without a deal as it would mean the EU’s financial institutions would have no access to services in London, which will likely remain a key business and finance hub even outside the European Union.
A report by the Association of Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) which represents the financial services sector in the EU, recently published a report suggesting the UK’s exit could create €15bn worth of restructuring costs for the industry, and potentially €40bn to meet the concerns of regulators.
The impact on EEA and UK consumers would also be prohibitive. In a no deal scenario, millions of consumers could find themselves, at least temporarily, without access to some of their financial services if passporting arrangements cease without any mutual agreement or transitional arrangements.
And then there’s ancillary effects, for instance the impact on Financial Intelligence Units and their work, if the current regime were to end without any deal in place.
While minority areas in the EU may see Brexit as an opportunity, it is widely understood that the City of London carries substantial benefits due to its established reputation, size and strength in the global market, as well as offering cheaper and more efficient access to financial institutions.
No deal Brexit is not likely
While this recent City delegation has reportedly visited Brussels in concern over the potential of a poor deal – or no deal – after Brexit, this outcome is highly unlikely as the EU is aware of the damage it will do to itself by punishing Britain for the sake of it.
Even if the UK makes a clean break from the single market and the current passporting regime ends, it is likely that some form of mutual access agreement – like that reportedly being pushed by the City delegation – will be reached, enabling financial groups from the UK and the EU to operate in each other’s markets.
At the very least, a transitional period will need to be agreed to allow enough time for adaptation and prevent UK and European financial services falling into confusion with the resulting impact on consumers, businesses and our economies.
Financial services businesses looking to set up within this region will always look to London first as a base of operation. It remains to be seen what will come of Brexit negotiations for this sector, but a suitable trade deal and appropriate transitional period remains the most likely outcome for both sides.
According to Forbes, voters concerned about immigration helped swing both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump to the winning ends, but this goes beyond the UK and US’ big socio-political decisions. In many countries now workers are putting pressure on lawmakers to oppose the perceived threat of immigration.
This in turn allegedly affects regional and sector markets and the global economy a great deal. This week Finance Monthly heard from several specialist sources on the various ways immigration changes and public opinion on immigration are or aren’t shaping local and global economies.
Tijen Ahmet, Immigration Specialist, Shakespeare Martineau:
Positive news about migrant workers is often overlooked. As immigration is regularly at the forefront of news and political debate, migrants - whether filling highly-skilled or low skilled jobs - often bring benefits to their host country that directly impact on global business.
The invaluable knowledge and talent from the highly skilled, and the filling of key occupations by the low skilled, can decrease unemployment and increase income capacity with no negative influence on public finances. Most significantly, migrants allow businesses to expand their workforce to meet their growth potential.
UK corporates across the retail, IT and financial services sectors in particular, are beginning to seek their migrant workforce from new markets that they would not have ordinarily considered, forming alternative relationships with fresh customer markets.
There is an assumption that all migrant workers are low skilled and this just isn’t the case. Migrants from a global arena not only fill talent deficits in the host labour market, but can also offer a diverse skillset that may be lacking in the host country. Such skills can generate more cross-border new business opportunities by opening communication up to new markets, while knowledge transfer can assist in upskilling existing co-workers.
Due to restrictions of free movement between the UK and EU global businesses have the opportunity to select the most suited candidate from a much wider pool of talent by casting the net more widely.
With Brexit negotiations unfolding, it is likely that immigration laws will continue to change frequently and directly impact global businesses as a result. Such quick changes to immigration laws, such as those revealed in the Queen’s Speech can cause significant instability in currency markets, causing drastic fluctuations.
Although businesses with bigger profit margins are less sensitive to currency fluctuations, increased exchange rate volatility combined with the complex structures of most global businesses, means that monitoring trading activity is now essential, no matter the size or scale of the business.
The UK’s decision to exit the EU, where immigration was a commonly considered factor for the leave campaign, provided a strong example of fluctuating currency rates. For example, immediately after the Brexit vote there was a sharp drop leaving GBP to EUR 15% lower than pre-Brexit and GBP to USD and AUD down 17%, having a significant direct financial impact on global business.
Guilherme Azevedo, Associate Professor in Business & Society, Audencia Business School:
In December 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau went to Toronto’s airport to receive Syrian refugee families. When handing them winter coats, he repeated many times: “Welcome. You’re safe at home now”. Refugees to Canada arrive as permanent residents and receive support to become full-fledged citizens as swiftly and smoothly as possible. The families are sponsored by local communities, bodies of government, churches, and individuals who provide them with money and housing for one year. Many of them become economically autonomous and start to give back to society before that year is over.
Trudeau’s statement goes further than expressing the values of solidarity that most Canadians cherish. It makes good economic sense. The integration of migrants into the fabric of a nation has net economic advantages—and even more so to developed economies with low birth rates. Research shows that those who move to a new country in the pursue of a better life work harder, are more entrepreneurial, create more wealth, and even win more Noble Prizes than the rest of the population.
Of course, the results are not so positive when immigrants came to do backbreaking work but receive virtually no rights—as, for instance, those coming to Germany following the 1950’s and ironically called Gastarbeiter (meaning ‘guest-workers,’ as if guests should be expected to do the hard work). Or when, despite French Law and the very principle of égalité saying otherwise, the grandchildren of colonial wars returnees continue to be perceived as second-class citizens. In these cases, full integration will take much longer. But suitable integration helps the host economy to remain vigorous and innovative. Just look at the business, the cultural, and the scientific landscapes in the U.S. and you see the power of first-, second-, and third-generation immigrants. They are the ‘American dream.’
Hence, when it comes to immigration, what is bad for economy is misinformation and ignorance. Trump’s election and the Brexit voting have been the result of populist maneuvers. The Polish plumber, the Mexican rapist, the Islamic fundamentalist, and etcetera (remember the greedy Jew from the Nazi?), are xenophobic fabrications without empirical relevance to national economies. They are mere rhetoric puppets and scape goats.
Populism depends on people believing that a simplistic plan will solve a complex problem, which can only happen if there is misinformation and ignorance. Irresponsible journalism also carries a share of blame on both Trump’s election and the Brexit voting. In the first, the Democrats-inclined media (mostly CCN) gave extraordinary coverage to Donald Trump since the very beginning of the primaries because it was good for the audience rates. When the bad joke went too far, they couldn’t stop it anymore. (But, again, can we consider democratic an electoral system that is so anachronic and so scandalously influenced by big capital?) In the case of Brexit, the British media remained oddly silent for at least a decade of demagogues blaming the fictitious lazy Europeans for their domestic problems. Here goes the simplistic promise: “If your life is not as good as you wished, just exit Europe and the problem will be solved”. Well… that’s not so elementary my dear Watson.
Finally, if we step beyond analyses of national economies and look at the global business, the conclusion remains the same, just more obvious: barriers to migration (as well as barriers to flow of capitals and goods) create distortions to currency fluctuation and to markets’ values, not the other way around. Closing boundaries is a path leading back to economic obscurantism and stagnation.
Bottom line: perceived economic threats due to immigration are hugely overstated. The real problems are ignorance and populisms, which can be solved through decent education systems, responsible journalism, and freedom of speech.
James Trescothick, Senior Global Stretegist, easyMarkets:
In recent times, nothing has provoked more debate or in many cases fear in the general populous more than the immigration topic. In fact, in 2016 we saw two major surprises, first the Brexit result and then Donald Trump winning the US election. Many believe the reasons for these surprise outcomes were that voters making their decision based upon their concern about immigration control.
But let’s answer this question; is immigration really a burden or is it actually a benefit? The answer is it can be both, but it leans towards being a benefit.
How many times have you heard the outcry of “they take our jobs” from those of the public who tend to fear migrants coming into their countries? Let’s face it, it is often the first protest we get. But statistically speaking this is more than often not the case as the jobs that migrants take are the jobs that no one wants or are in totally different fields. The economic impact of migrants can be calculated but looking at the taxes and other contributions they make and deduct the benefits and services they receive.
If of course they receive more than are putting into the economy then they do indeed become a burden, but more often than not, countries have benefitted from immigrants and have seen expansion in economic output in the long term.
When it comes to currency fluctuations and the markets, there is no short-term impact from immigration, as the markets perform based on current and projected economic performance. The outcome of increased immigrants would not show signs if they are indeed a burden or benefit for many years.
Immigration is really a tool for politicians to spark debate and win votes and not a driving a force for the markets.
We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
As falsified information spreads, more people tend to believe it, and sooner or later, it’s the common knowledge and understanding. This in turn affects how we see and think, about what we buy and what we invest in, where we place our vote and how we want Brexit to turn out. But what if we’re just causing unnecessary damage in the long run?
Fake news, news with zero credibility, isn't new. But it's re-emerged as a monster during the past few years. So much so that world leaders are falsifying commentary which they believe to be true. What's worse, it's sneaked into our everyday lives with such subtlety most people don't know it's there. Adverts published by media outlets and social networks warn everyone to watch out for fake news, but when the mediums themselves are used to facilitate misleading information, things start to get confusing.
When it's used to infiltrate a country's political and economic structure, it's what Bath University's professor of sociology explains as, “An extraordinary scandal that this should be anywhere near a democracy.”
Most intelligent of people associate the word fake with something either false; fictionalised or to be untrue. In short, a lie. Propaganda, fake news, misinformation – is there any real difference?
You could call the people we trust to run our nation’s experts on creating, aggregating and perpetuating fake news, their lies published for all to read. Like teenagers, they use things like social media to smear the opposition. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny. It's caused more than a ripple in American politics, with obvious ramifications on its economy.
False claims, politics and the economy
The Leave campaign [for the EU referendum] spurred a dangerous political game by promoting several misguided financial promises. The most protruding were the campaigns claiming that EU was costing the UK £350 million a week, and “separating” meant the money saved would be spent on the NHS. However, In March, shortly after the referendum results were announced, the agenda involving the pledge forgotten about. Earlier this year Teresa May admitted that the money pledged to the NHS would not happen.
The Telegraph reported that in 2015, the UK paid the EU £250 million a week, £100 million less than what was claimed by the Leave campaign.
Perhaps then, false claims, which certainly contributed to the win, were seen as good enough to use again to conclude the outcome of the snap general election – Teresa May has recently been accused of shaking the ‘magic money tree’ after her £1 billion deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). After May’s U-turn on social care pledges and the money she told the NHS, she doesn’t have, the nation is left wondering whether any of the financial pledges she has made in her manifesto will suffice.
May has accused the Financial Times, the Mail on Sunday and Jeremy Corbyn of creating fake news about her manifesto. Perhaps, it’s something unconsciously picked up from President Trump. After all, he has reprimanded most of the World's press, saying they all report fake news about him and his administration. The BBC got a special mention. It turns out, President Trump knows a thing or two about how influential digital information is, and how to use it. CMC Markets said, “For all the new President’s promises that a plan is on its way he continues to devote his energies at depicting the press as purveyors of “fake news”. If he devoted anywhere as much energy towards his new fiscal plans as he does in portraying himself as a victim there would in all probability be a lot less uncertainty around the prospects of the global economy than there currently is at the moment.”
Sometimes news is purely and intentionally fake. Click bait headlines to grab attention, generate traffic, and earn thousands in advertisement revenue. This kind of news can get so much traffic it trends, is picked up by major media outlets and then relayed as real news. How does that happen?
Buzzfeed's Craig Silverman said, “A largely credible outlet might see it and quickly write something up...The incentive is towards producing more and checking less.” If an enemy relies on weaknesses, unchecked content is payday.
“Checking less” certainly happens with editorial staff as breaking stories mean traffic and revenue. Southend News Network, run by Simon Harris, experienced this when a story published on yourbrexit.co.uk, a website connected to SNN, published a headline that said Jeremy Corbyn and Labour were happy to foot a £92 billion Brexit bill, after thousands of social media shares and even the likes of The Standard running the story, it emerged that Corbyn did not say anything of the sort and his words were taken out of context. Harris said he didn’t have time to fact check everything, so begs the question: in a world where we fight for information, whose responsibility is it?
Has Brexit and the false news ripple in the American system infiltrated UK politics, finances, and the overall economy?
Brexit certainly prompted politically-false financial claims and pledges, but also brought to the forefront the problems within the system. The truth is, financial markets have long been affected by the scandal known as fake news.
Andrew Clare, a professor at London's Cass Business School, warned the Financial Times back in 2012 about how fake news can skew investor decisions. The consequences are clear: “These stories ultimately lead to losses for investors once the truth is uncovered.”
Clare's comments were in response to an author who was paid to write about ImmunoCellular Therapeutics and their development of an experimental cancer treatment. The article was published on Seeking Alpha, a respected go-to website for serious investors. Upon the article being released, share prices of the pharmaceutical company shot up from $42.8 to $155.2. After a clinical update on the cancer treatment, the share price dropped to an all-time low. Not only impacting investors but also a thriving economy.
Here is where things get complicated, fake news and false claims isn't a harmless, satirical concept. It's more than hoaxing celebrity deaths and whatever sells glossy magazines and advertising; tweaking information from a grain of its truth and using it to influence people’s decisions is otherwise known as propaganda. Spreading misinformation (to instill fear and gain power) infuses the divide and conquer and mindset. Nations divided over financial and political ideals and the belief of said information.
Author: Ron Short began his career as a portfolio manager working with FTSE 250 companies in the UK. He now lives in Spain, where he enjoys a career in financial writing.
By Paresh Davdra, CEO & Co-founder of RationalFX & Xendpay
It was 1961 when Britain flustered into an application for membership of the European Economic Community – an initial step in the direction of something that would, over the years, translate to being a part of the world’s largest single market and by 1973, Britain was officially a part of the EEC.
The blueprint of this vision for the European Union, one that would be intrinsically linked on socio-economic paradigms, existed way before it was officially enacted upon under the treaty of Maastricht in 1993. The main reason for a Union was seen as a preventive measure against the possibility of future rises of nationalism, and along with this came the economic benefits through collaboration between a few of the world’s most productive countries.
In some ways, it feels like Britain’s membership of the European Union has come and gone quickly; what’s passed even quicker is the year since the UK decided to end their relationship with the EU. The implication of this development has affected more lives than one can count and of course has made a significant impact on the business sector of both the UK and the remaining EU 27 countries.
The immediate impact of the referendum was felt in the local currency valuation – in June 2016, the pound witnessed shock market devaluation as investors lost confidence in the UK’s future economic outlook. A total devaluation of 17% was immediately priced into the pound. Since then, a lot has transpired – we have faced the turbulence of the US presidential elections, which in addition to the June vote, appeared to spell an uncertain future of the global economic outlook. This did not change much, as uncertainty at home and uncertainty abroad combined began to affect the global markets, leaving investors riding on speculative waves through the initial months of Brexit and the US Presidential elections.
Then there was the legal challenge to the UK government’s ability to trigger Article 50 without going to Parliament. This entire affair actively shaped the market outlooks through the few months of court hearings and market fluctuations, with numerous ‘remainers’ possibly hoping for a U-turn on Brexit. Of course, this would not be the case in any way, yet the court hearings would see valuations of UK companies and the pound change within the course of mere minutes. Furthermore, organizations throughout the UK raised concerns over uncertainty of access to the single market, especially in light of immigration and passporting rights for employees, an aspect considered crucial by most international organizations that are headquartered in the UK, this story however, is on-going and much clarity is yet to be delivered.
Through the Brexit year, consumers have had to endure the news that Marmite and Nestlé coffee would now be more expensive, in addition to few other FMCG’s. At this point, organisations had already started to price in the beleaguered pound, as market confidence refused to budge. However, there seemed to be some hope for a few sectors of the UK economy; for instance, the export sector enjoyed the priced down costs on the back of the devalued pound – while the manufacturing sector faced the brunt of rising costs due to the same reason.
After the court hearing on triggering Article 50, a vote and a general debate in parliament raised points on mandatory mentions of key issues within the official notification for triggering Article 50. Thus began the process to pen down the divorce bill that marginally touched on issues such as promises of securing rights for EU citizens in the UK. Even though the picture appeared to be one of a panic struck market, in the initial days of 2017, we somehow found ourselves amid a seemingly buoyant economy. As UK organizations amended their overarching business plans, the economic data releases spoke a much sturdy language – bringing back hope to the UK’s future prospects as an independent economy.
On 29th March 2017, the Article 50 notification was presented to president Tusk, officially invoking Article 50 and starting two years of negotiations to establish a deal for the UK’s exit from the Union. In the letter presented to Donald Tusk, the UK acknowledged the ‘four freedoms’, the main doctrines that lie at the heart of the EU and buttress the single market. The UK pointed out that goods, capital, services, and labour are inseparable and emphasized that we are not pursuing association with the single market. Nevertheless, the importance of “economic and security cooperation” was emphasized on along with a stern mention of a “bold and ambitious” Free Trade Agreement that would encompass sectors crucial to the two linked economies such as financial services and network industries.
By now the markets have priced in the uncertainty of Britain’s future relationship with the EU, Prime Minister Theresa May has, on several occasions, announced a new outlook towards the world with a vision for a more ‘open’ Britain. The new outlook has brought to light new aspects of economic ties that Britain is seemingly inclined on exploring, especially the ‘look east’ policy – scouring trade ties with India and the Middle-East, either of which have not yielded concrete results thus far. However, this may not be the main challenge for the UK currently. The ability to maintain a skilled workforce along with seamless cooperation between international associations such as the regulatory authorities and other associations maintaining consistent global standards could be the challenge that we must address for a sustained outlook towards a better future, with or without the EU.
One year on since the referendum, much of the mist still remains. The way forward does appear clamorous with much room for scepticism, but being at the cross roads many times since the June vote has strengthened the ones involved, though it may be difficult to distract ourselves from hard economic truths – the way forward certainly does require hard work in truly looking at an independent and ‘open’ Britain.
The bravery of the UK is deeply reflected in its economic strength and the belief in itself is the key driver for the near future, the markets have righteously shrugged off the shock and scaled themselves to absorb even more. We are not at a time and place where a wait and see policy would flourish.
Oanda Senior Market Analyst Craig Erlam believes the GBP exchange rate depends on how the Brexit talks unfold and the political situation in the UK. Erlam says the US dollar is heavily sold and due for correction. He expects EUR/USD to revisit 1.10 handle.
Watch the full segment as Erlam details the key technical levels on the major pairs - EUR/USD, GBP/JPY and GBP/USD.
Tip TV Finance is a daily finance show based in Belgravia, London. Tip TV Finance prides itself on being able to attract the very highest quality guests on the show to talk markets, economics, trading and investing, keeping our audience informed via insightful and actionable infotainment.
The Tip TV Daily Finance Show covers all asset classes ranging from currencies (forex), equities, bonds, commodities, futures and options. Guests share their high conviction market opportunities, covering fundamental, technical, inter-market and quantitative analysis, with the aim of demystifying financial markets for viewers at home.
At the heart of the Queen’s speech today were an array of proposed bills that prepare the UK for a smooth exit from the European Union. Of 27 bills, eight pertain directly to Brexit and its implications for key sectors.
There are bills to convert EU laws to UK laws and some measures on immigration, fisheries, trade, nuclear power, agriculture and sanctions.
Below Tom McPhail, Head of Policy at Hargreaves Lansdown, discusses the proposed changes with Finance Monthly.
Given what a hash the Conservatives made of using the General Election to increase their majority, and given the overwhelming priority of Brexit, there were a least a few positive announcements in the forthcoming programme. The most important dog that didn’t bark was any kind of announcement on a savings and investment policy; we will continue to press the government on this issue and to look at the possibility of introducing a Savings Commission.
- Financial guidance body
- Unfinished business on pensions and savings
- Social care consultation
- Education
- Digital strategy
- Consumer markets, including the energy market
Financial guidance body
The creation of a new financial guidance body, merging the Money Advice Service, Pension Wise and the Pensions Advice Service into one single body was unfinished business from the last parliament. This guidance service is welcome and necessary, but there remain significant challenges in closing the advice gap and in helping consumers to get the guidance and information they need to make good financial decisions. This is an issue on which the Treasury needs to continue to focus and to work with the FCA and the financial services industry. We also believe that all investors should be encouraged to undertake a financial health-check at age 50 as preparation for their transition from work to retirement; for most people, this is an age when it they are close enough to retirement for it to seem relevant but also far enough way to make meaningful change to their eventual outcomes.
Unfinished business on pensions and savings
It is hardly surprising there was no announcement on the state pension triple lock, as it currently has no formal legislative status; this is something which the Conservative party will probably want to quietly revisit when it feels it has a little more pensioner goodwill in the bank. This could take a while. Similarly, it is hardly surprising there was no mention of any legislation to means-test the winter fuel payment.
In the meantime, there was a disappointing lack of any announcement on a savings and investment policy, something which this country and in particular the younger generations urgently need.
We are also disappointed the government has made no mention of plans to press ahead with a ban on pension cold-calling, something which would now be in train were it not for the General Election.
Social Care consultation
We welcome the announcement of a consultation on care costs. Given the structural damage the Tory party inflicted on itself in the election campaign through its mismanaged social care announcement, it would have been a wasted opportunity not to press ahead with a consultation on reform.
To put this in context, depending on assumptions used such as the continuation of the Triple Lock, we might see the cost of the state pension increase by perhaps 1% of GDP over the next 50 years (from around 5.5% today). The cost of long-term care can be expected to increase by another 1% of GDP over the next 50 years as a result of the ageing population (from 1% of GDP to 2%) and over the same period, the ageing population is likely to increase health care costs generally by over 5% of GDP from 7.3% to 12.6%.
Financial education
The Queen’s speech makes reference to government plans for school and technical education. As part of this programme, we believe greater prominence should be given to financial education and financial literacy. This needs to be addressed across all ages of the population, from those in Junior school through to investors of retirement age.
Digital Charter and digital ID
The government proposes to introduce a new digital charter to ensure the UK is a safe place to be online. We support this initiative and would encourage the government to work with the financial services industry to develop a private sector Digital ID to complement the existing public sector Verify system. Individuals conducting financial transactions, opening accounts, transferring money or using the pension dashboard in the future, need a simple electronic mechanism to prove they are who they say they are. A Digital ID is the answer to cutting bureaucracy, reducing costs and speeding up processes; the government’s new Digital charter may offer a vehicle to accelerate this process.
In this video, Mark Burgess, Chief Investment Officer, EMEA, talks about how the markets view the June 8th 2017, election result and its potential impact on the UK economy. He also discusses what the election outcome signals for the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.
Authored by Markus Kuger, Senior Economist at Dun & Bradstreet.
On Monday 19th June, the UK is scheduled to enter negotiations for its exit from the EU, in discussions that will fundamentally shape the future of the country and its economy. Just two months ago Prime Minister Theresa May surprised the nation by calling a shock general election, seemingly with the aim of strengthening her position in the Brexit negotiations and bolstering her claim to represent a consensus in the UK. However, the election did not unfold as expected.
Despite early polls suggesting a 20 percentage point lead for the Conservatives, the Tories lost 13 seats and thus their overall majority. Now, just days before talks with the EU begin, the Prime Minister is involved in domestic negotiations with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to form a government. So, what will the ‘Hung Parliament’ outcome mean for Brexit negotiations – and how can businesses respond?
On the home front
Short-term political uncertainty in the UK has increased sharply. The Conservative Party must now enter an alliance with another party in order to pass the Queen’s Speech and form a new government. Overall, this process will be time-consuming, leaving businesses without a clear outlook in the coming days and possibly even weeks.
In the longer term, even with the support of the DUP, the Conservatives’ majority will be extremely slim – which will be problematic, given the wide spectrum of views within the party on a number of issues, including Brexit. Against this backdrop, the government is likely to need to tread a conciliatory line both within and outside its own party: all of which will fundamentally impact the Brexit negotiations. Taking all factors into account, Dun & Bradstreet has downgraded the UK’s Political Environment Outlook from 'deteriorating' to 'deteriorating rapidly’, although this indicator is likely to be upgraded again once a new government is formed.
At the negotiating table
The dynamic of the Brexit negotiations has changed fundamentally. After Article 50 was invoked on 29 March and snap elections were called in April, initial talks between the EU and the UK were scheduled for 19/20 June. However, this round of talks is unlikely to deliver any noteworthy results, as the yet-to-be-formed British government will not have had enough time to prepare its negotiating position.
The election result suggests that the UK lacks an overwhelming consensus on the sort of deal that should be brokered. Theresa May’s personal position has also shifted, and rumours already suggest that she could be asked to step down by her own party at some point in the coming months as a result of the disappointing election outcome. The UK government may need to placate a broader range of opinions in parliament – including those of other parties – to pass any legislation. The extra time this will take will make negotiations with the EU even more complicated: Article 50 sets a strict 24-month deadline within which talks must be completed, of which two months have already passed due to the election campaign in the UK.
We predict that in the long run, the election result could make a ‘hard’ Brexit – which our analysis suggests would be harmful for the British economy – extremely hard to implement. It’s now more likely that the UK could remain in a customs union with the EU, reducing Brexit’s impact on businesses. The election outcome has even opened up the very small chance of the UK remaining in the EU, although businesses should continue to assume that the UK’s exit from the EU will still take place in March 2019. With so many factors in play at home and internationally, it is currently difficult to predict how the negotiations will unfold.
From the business perspective
All of this makes for a complex environment for businesses. Our analysis indicates that uncertainty will remain high in the next 18 months, regardless of what happens in the wake of the election, and we are maintaining our risk rating for the UK at DB2d, with a ‘deteriorating’ outlook. Given the backdrop of an already slowing economy (the UK posted the lowest real GDP growth of all 28 EU economies in Q1 2017), it is not surprising that businesses are beginning to express a lack of confidence, as seen in a recently published survey for the Institute of Directors.
Businesses should continue to monitor the progress of negotiations, and use the latest data and analytics to assess risk and identify potential opportunities. Once a government is firmly in place and Brexit negotiations progress, organisations may get a clearer picture of the likely basis for future business relations between the UK and the rest of the world. Until then, a careful and measured approach to managing relationships with suppliers, customers, prospects and partners will be essential.
Navigating uncertain times
The general election result surprised most commentators, and more importantly it creates the prospect of greater uncertainty in the medium term – both domestically and for the Brexit negotiations, which will be one of the most significant factors in the future development of the UK economy.
However, it’s vital to remember that the UK remains a stable economy, with long-term economic potential that exceeds that of most other European economies. For now, businesses should continue to follow developments closely as the impact on the Brexit settlement – and the political landscape of the UK – becomes clearer.
Earlier this month, Finance Monthly had the privilege of interviewing the CFO of IBM UK & Ireland (UKI) – Vineet Khurana. Here he discusses his role within the organisation, Brexit implications and offers piece of advice to fledging CFOs.
You have been the CFO of IBM UKI for nearly a year now - what is your favourite thing about your role?
My favourite thing about the role has to be the breadth, reach and influence it offers.
I get to work extremely closely with our Chief Executive and the rest of the leadership team (Sales, Operations, HR, IT, RESO, etc.) not only on all financial matters, but also across a spectrum of other business matters that impact our business - both in the short and long term. As an example, I recently led a piece of work, in partnership with the Corporate Strategy team based at the Headquarters in New York, to re-define our Client coverage strategy in the UK.
As a CFO, I am also presented with opportunities to engage externally with Clients and share with them IBM’s point of view and value proposition, as it relates to Enterprise IT. I personally find this aspect of my role very enjoyable.
What would you say have been IBM UK & Ireland's major achievements in the past twelve months? What has been your involvement, in relation to them?
Our key focus over the last year has been to align ourselves here in the UK & Ireland with IBM’s transformation as a Cloud Platform and a Cognitive Solutions company.
This is absolutely key for us in order to fully leverage and benefit from the breadth of the Cloud-based cognitive offerings that are available. Associated with this, my role as the Finance Leader for UK & Ireland has been to ensure that our resources and investments are (a) prioritized and (b) deployed appropriately in support of this initiative. Of course, we’ve also had to make sure that we have a revised set of operational/performance metrics and reporting capabilities in place.
Finally, as mentioned above, the work we led as a Finance team in regards to re-defining and making our Client Coverage strategy more effective is something I am particularly proud of.
What is the best advice you could share with Fledging CFOs and Finance Directors?
With the role of finance constantly expanding and finance increasingly needing to play a central part in all business decisions, I really don’t think there has been a more exciting time to be a finance professional.
Technological advances are disrupting the status-quo. Companies are utilising technology to transform their business and the way they interact with their clients and employees. This is being done while industry convergence is producing new agile rivals at breakneck speed. With all this change afoot, the role of the CFO needs to change as well.
CFOs need to embrace business strategy in addition to the financial strategy, understand the changing market/client needs in addition to regulatory changes, and deliver business insight in conjunction with data reporting and analysis.
Therefore, my advice is to embrace this change, as it is key to ensure your increased effectiveness in the role and your ability to deliver enhanced value at the leadership table.
In light of the recent triggering of Article 50 - what is your outlook for the future of IBM UK Ireland in next twelve months and beyond?
IBM has been operating in the UK for over 100 years and as such it is an important market in the context of our global business. We have always done and continue to make significant investments here in support of our business and economy. As an example, we recently announced the establishment of four new UK cloud data centres, tripling our UK cloud data centre capability.
In summary, we are making sure that we are well-placed to help our clients as they transform their businesses by improving their competitiveness, as they prepare to exploit new opportunities.
What are the implications and challenges of global Brexit uncertainties faced by CFOs?
I think we all recognise that we are facing an extended period of uncertainty during the exit negotiations. So at this early stage of Brexit, the approach of the CFO should be to understand the potential exposures their organisations could face.
I believe two significant uncertainties centre around import/export of goods and data and the free movement of resources across the continent. The magnitude of these uncertainties will obviously vary by sector and individual organisation. CFOs should look at mapping the relative exposure of their organisations to these elements by carrying out the data analytics work now. This analysis will then allow for quicker action and informed business decisions to be taken, once the negotiations are concluded and changes in regulations are clear.
