The US economy’s growth rate last quarter was recently revised on the basis of stronger investment from businesses and government bodies than previously assessed. GDP in Q3 was revised up to 3.3% annual growth rate compared to the previous quarter. This was according to the US Department of Commerce in a press release on the 29th November 2017.

This week Finance Monthly reached out to sources across the globe to hear their take on the current situation in the US, what has impacted growth across several industries, and what the forecast for 2018 looks like.

Josh Seager, Investment Analyst, EQ Investors:

US growth was revised to 3.3% annualised on Wednesday, up from an initial reading of 2%. This was the fastest growth rate in 12 quarters but there is likely to be some hurricane distortions, so we must interpret the data with caution, we don’t expect it to continue at this level.

Looking into the numbers and things look broadly positive. Consumer spending, which accounts for around 70% of the US economy, remained strong, growing 2.3%. This wasn’t quite as strong as last quarter but is a good level nonetheless and shows that the US consumer is relatively healthy. For the consumer to continue to spend, we really need wage growth. So far, this has been pretty anaemic in spite of very low unemployment. We believe this could be about to change. NFIB Small Business Surveys show that 35% of small business are now finding it hard to fill jobs and 21% are planning to raise compensations as a result. This data points are at cycle highs and this is highly likely to feed into US wage growth at some point.

Business investment picked up, contributing 1.2% to growth, up from 1% the quarter before. This is a pleasing sign as it suggests that corporates are gaining confidence in the economy and are willing to make the investment necessary to capitalise on this. Corporate profits were also up last quarter which should give corporates the financial freedom to continue to develop and (hopefully) growth wages.

Dan North, Chief Economist, Euler Hermes North America:

Consumer

• Despite tepid income growth and only modest spending growth, consumers are exuberant.
• Consumer confidence rose 3.3 points in November to 129.5, the highest in 17 years.
• The present situation component rose 1.9 to the highest level in almost 17 years, while the future expectations component gained 4.3, also a 17-year record.

Home Sales

• The actual level of annualized sales can be more revealing, and at 685,000 units it is the highest in ten years, which is undoubtedly good news. But it also illustrates the damage a burst asset bubble can cause.
• Despite having grown annually at 15% since the bottom, the current level of sales is still only half of what it was at the peak of the housing bubble, and it has only rebounded from the collapse to levels seen 20 years ago.
• But to repeat, the recent news is strong.

Holiday Shopping

• According to Adobe Insights, on-line sales rose 16.8% on Cyber Monday and 17% on Black Friday, extraordinary growth rates.
• But online sales are still only about 10% of total sales so these growth rates are not unexpected.
• The National Retail Federation (NRF) had predicted 164 million people would shop over the holiday weekend, but the actual results were 174 million.
• But then despite seeing more shoppers than expected, the NRF did not increase its previous forecast of 4% sales growth.
• The reports are mixed, but in the end we expect to see very modest growth in brick and mortar sales and very strong growth in on-line sales.

Tim Sambrook, Professor of Finance, Audencia Business School:

The upward revision, from previously 3.0%, was mainly due to a higher than expected increase in public and private spending.

The increase compares favourably with the second quarter of 2017 of 3.1%, and the third quarter of 2016 of 2.8%. It is the fastest rate since Q3 2014.

If the current estimate of growth in the Q4 GDP is realized, then this would represent the first time since 2004 that the US economy has posted three consecutive quarters of over 3%.

The growth rate is in line with the government’s target. They are engaging a tax cut plan to lift GDP to 3% annually. However, economists see such a pace as unsustainable and expect growth to slow sometime in 2018.

If you were to look for some bad news in the revision, then you could point to the fact that the revision comes from public and private spending and not consumer spending, which makes up 70% of the US economy. In addition, inventory build-up was significant and could prove to be a drag on growth in the future. However, this upward revision comes with a backdrop of severe hurricanes and low wage growth, which should have been quite negative for consumer growth.

This positive news will strengthen the case for the Fed to raise rates next month, although the announcement had little effect on the dollar or the markets.

Duncan Donald, CEO, The London Academy of Trading:

The highlight of last week’s US data card was the release of the GDP numbers for the third quarter of 2017. The number brought US GDP from 3% to 3.3%.

This is slightly above the median expectation of 3.2%, and shows the US economy continues to expand progressively with the GDP reading being the most aggressive since late 2014.

But in context, what does this mean for the US rate path, as the December rate decision from the Federal Reserve rate setting committee comes next week? From freshly inaugurated Federal Chair Jerome Powell’s perspective, the data is on course for a hike. Even the departing Janet Yellen appeared to shift her dovish tone, referencing data with the possibility of a hike in December.

We need to look no further than the recent performance of US stocks and the dollar for confirmation that the market believes in the upcoming rate hike. Despite the ongoing investigation into President Trump’s electoral campaign, which is an obvious anchor, there are no signs of a slowdown in the US positivity story. The one final hurdle for the market to overcome ahead of next week’s decision is the Non-Farm Payrolls on Friday. The data has been somewhat muddied over the last few months, as hurricanes have taken their toll. However, this month, we should expect to get a true reading on the strength of the US jobs market.

A strong Friday performance will push the market up the final few percent towards a December hike.

John Lorié, Chief Economist, Atradius:

Across the Atlantic, the US economic outlook is also robust, which is reflected in high business confidence. US GDP is expected to expand a solid 2.0% in 2017 and 2018. The positive outlook is supported by strong job growth, very low and still declining unemployment, and even firming wage pressure. In this environment, the number of bankruptcy filings is at historical lows. In Q3 of 2016, the number of bankruptcies in the US reached its lowest quarterly level since Q4 of 2006. We forecast a 4.0% decline in the overall number of insolvencies this year and a mild 2.0% decline in 2018. The US outlook is subject to risks, on the upside (tax reform) as well as downside (trade, NAFTA).

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

Bitcoin is becoming a pretty normal currency in transactions worldwide, and it hasn’t failed to infiltrate paychecks either. So, if a salary is paid in part or in full in bitcoin, how is the income taxed? And how is tax applied to transactions anyway? Fiona Cincotta, Senior Market Analyst at City Index, clarifies the matter for Finance Monthly.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency, that can be generated by mining or bought using cash, credit card or a paypal account. Bitcoin began in 2009. At the start, one of the advantages of bitcoin was the fact that is wasn’t regulated and could be used in transactions to avoid tax obligations. However, tax authorities caught on and since then tax authorities across the globe have been trying to introduce and advance regulation on the bitcoin.

Whilst the cryptocurrencies exist on a global network, tax regulations in general differ for each country around the world. However, broadly speaking most tax authorities are on the same page when it comes to the treatment of the bitcoin.

As a general rule, buying a bitcoin anywhere in the world is not a taxable operation in itself. However, taxes are likely to occur when you sell that bitcoin, or possibly spend the bitcoin, and make a profit in the process.

How much you would be taxed on the transaction would then depend on several factors:

• The amount of gains;
• How long you were holding the currency for;
• If the country in question has capital gains tax.

Again, generally speaking, most countries do not consider virtual currencies to be “currencies” from a tax point of view. Instead they are treated as a property or capital asset. This means that any gains are taxed as capital gains in the year that they are realised.

As with property, capital gains tax is liable on profits, meanwhile should an investor realise a loss from a bitcoin transaction, the investor would be able to deduct any losses and therefore reduce the tax bill.

Realization happens when the bitcoin is exchanged for any other type of other property. This could be cash, services or products. Essentially almost any transaction which involves the bitcoin is in fact a realisation event and therefore gains are taxable. The following transactions could be taxable events:

• Selling a personally mined bitcoin to a third party;
• Selling bitcoins bought from someone to a third party;
• Using personally mined bitcoins to buy goods or services;
• Using bitcoins bought from someone to buy goods or services.

Scenarios which involve mining of bitcoin followed by either selling or exchanging for goods or services afterwards, will mean that the value received for the bitcoin is taxed as personal or business income, after subtracting any expenses incurred from mining eg cost electricity.

Meanwhile the other two examples, taker the bitcoin as an investment asset. Gain are taxed regardless whether the bitcoin was exchanged for money or goods or services. To cement this point let’s consider the following example. Should you own bitcoins that have increased in value, it is impossible to use them with realising a gain. Using the bitcoin to purchase a service or good, for example, is considered to be two transactions. One, selling out or realising the gain on the bitcoin and the second, being the purchase of the service or product. Few tax authorities would allow such a blatant loophole, as to not tax the transaction and ascension of wealth.

However, the implication of this is that every transaction involving the bitcoin is taxable. This in itself raises questions over the effectiveness of bitcoin as a medium of exchange, if the user has to calculate the tax liability after every transaction. So, the possibility now exists that over taxation of crypto currencies, could lead to their death.

As mentioned at the beginning tax implications can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The IRS in the US has a fairly standard approach to bitcoin taxation. The UK’s HMRC takes a more personalised approach and has has specifically said that it considers tax on bitcoins on a case by case basis. Whilst such a personalised approach is fine now, should the bitcoin increase in popularity HMRC may find its resources strained.

Anticipation, scepticism and fear are holding more Brits than Americans back from embracing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the workplace, according to a new study by CITE Research for SugarCRM.

The research on business executives in the US and UK reveals that that Brits are lagging behind when it comes to adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies into their work and personal lives. The survey reveals that 47% of Brits are currently using technology powered by AI in the workplace, compared with 55% of Americans. This trend transcends into people’s personal lives, with 62% of Brits and 64% of American’s using AI for non-work-related tasks, such as Amazon Alexa or Google Home.

The research also highlighted that when looking ahead, Brits are less open to embracing AI in the future. 69% of American respondents plan to deploy AI in the next two years, compared to 57% in the UK. Brits were twice as likely not to ever want to use AI, with one in five respondents (20%) opposing the technology, compared with 1 in 10 Americans.

Top concerns about AI on both sides of the Atlantic revolve around trusting the technology. More than half of respondents (52%) worry about data security, with 30% saying it is their top concern. Another 40% said they fear AI technology will make errors, and 41% fear losing control over the data. While 30% said they fear job loss because of AI, only 12% list it as their top concern.

When it came to the applications for AI in the world of work, US participants were more likely than Brits to say they would want AI to help with communication with customers (54% vs. 42% of Brits) or planning their day (46% vs. 35%). Automating data entry was the most popular task across the board for AI, with more than half (53%) believing it would help in their organisation, followed by gathering information on the internet (51%).

“The results of CITE Research’s survey reflect the industry's view on “the cloud” “big data” and other disruptive technologies over the years, said Clint Oram, CMO and co-founder at SugarCRM.

“You have a group that is ready to jump in with both feet and a group of naysayers who are absolutely against the technology. The rest of us are in the middle. Many have heard all the hype and are intrigued, but they would like some assurances that the positives will outweigh the negatives before they are ready to start spending money on AI tools.

“It’s interesting to see how attitudes differ across the Atlantic and that there is more reluctance from Brits in how AI can be used in their work. The technology offers the potential to reduce monotonous aspects of our working lives but there is a need to be realistic on its capabilities. It won’t replace people entirely and there is still a need for human interaction.”

In general, the survey showed that younger participants, those 34 or younger, were more excited and less fearful of AI. Younger participants were more likely to say their organisation will utilise it in the future (70%). Those 55 or older were more likely to worry about being overwhelmed with features they do not need (55% list this as a concern compared to 24% of those aged 18-54).

For the complete survey report, please visit here.

(Source: SugarCRM)

The Paradise Papers have revealed secret boltholes for many firms and individuals around the world, from sportsmen and the Queen to giants like Apple. But what are people’s thoughts on tax avoidance, which is very different from the illicit tax evasion? Tax avoidance has a large range of angles to consider, from investment to the moral dilemma of national tax, the spirit of the law, and of course financial protection.

Below Finance Monthly hears Your Thoughts on tax avoidance and offshore tax law loopholes, referencing the latest leaks and the information found therein, with experts from all round, covering various sectors.

Simon Browning, Partner, UHY Hacker Young:

The net is continuing to close in on a variety of tax planning and more information from the Paradise Papers will no doubt fuel HMRC’s efforts of collecting the tax gap.

In my opinion, there are two types of taxpayers who are getting caught up in the headline of ‘tax avoidance’:

• “Those who have little awareness or understanding of the tax plans they have entered into through their advisors, although ignorance should not be a defence, of course; and
• “Those who have knowingly relied upon tax planning that may have fallen within the letter of the law but perhaps not the spirit of it.

We are seeing many more arguments in the press about the moral position of taxpayers and it is clear the landscape has changed over the past five years or so, with tax avoidance appearing to be as abhorrent as tax evasion.

However, it is the courts that decide on tax matters and not the press, so we need to be careful not to tar everyone with the same brush and to allow informed decisions to be made through the correct channels.

The continuing change in landscape makes it very difficult for taxpayers and advisers to know where the line now is between acceptable tax planning and abusive avoidance.

It will be very interesting to see how HMRC and international tax authorities deal with the information from the Paradise Papers and whether they can successfully filter their way through commercial tax saving arrangements as compared to abuse of apparent loopholes.

Karl Pemberton, Managing Director, Active Chartered Financial Planners:

First and foremost, we must stress that we’re not ‘tax advisers’, albeit we do have a remit to consider taxation when advising clients on their investments.

The issue for us here is morality, as Tax Avoidance (or mitigation) is not illegal. Every client that invests within an ISA does so for the taxable benefits it brings. Similarly, so does a pension. If the tax breaks were not there, I doubt people would use them as they do. Investing offshore has always been a legitimate way of investing too, however some of the more complex schemes raised of late raises a question of morality, rather than legality.

I believe it’s the amounts involved that make it feel immoral to the majority of the general public. If, for example, we see someone who is taking home a large pay packet not paying the tax man the ‘fair’ amount, it makes people feel angry, as they’re already winning the lottery, as it were. The problem is, if it’s immoral to ‘legally avoid tax’ at all, the amounts should be irrelevant. This issue of morality, therefore, makes it impossible to police, as everyone has differing views.

If we’re saying that ‘avoiding tax’ at any level is wrong, then that should also mean the end to ISAs, pensions, and every accountancy business in the country, as this is their purpose in the end. It would become an absolute minefield.

Miles Dean, Managing Partner, Milestone International Tax:

It would be very surprising if the affairs of those individuals concerned were illegal or nefarious. It is the theft of the papers that is illegal.

Some of the documents relate to matters 75 years ago when the world was a very different place. Recent developments have made a significant impact on the use of tax havens, namely the common reporting standard (CRS) and FATCA. Both FATCA and CRS are automatic exchange of information protocols that mean privacy is no longer what it used to be.

Just because an individual makes an investment that is based offshore does not mean that they have done anything wrong – if they fail to disclose it (and the return they make) on their tax return then that’s tax evasion. But to make the quantum leap and suggest that everyone from the Queen to Bono is dodging tax because some of their investments are made via Bermuda, Cayman or Malta is stupidity on a grand scale.

Regarding Lord Ashcroft, if he is non-UK domiciled then he will benefit from the remittance basis of taxation. The fact that he took steps to mitigate his UK liability (legally) is a matter for him and his conscience, not the media.

The comments this morning by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell are wide of the mark – imposing a withholding tax on dividends will not stop tax abuse - it would simply make the UK less competitive as a jurisdiction for large multinationals, at a time when we need to be more competitive than ever.

John McDonnell’s comments illustrate just how magnificently out of touch he is with reality. A worrying thought given he’s likely to be our next Chancellor.

Dr Daniel Cash, Lecturer in Law, Aston University:

Offshore investing, in very general terms and in order to provide a realism check, is legal. The ability to invest one’s funds offshore, traditionally in a small jurisdiction that does not have the most sophisticated regulatory structure, is noted as being a viable and useful investment strategy for a number of reasons. Whether it is to diversify one’s exposure to risk, to protect one’s assets from political variabilities (like war or political instability, for example), or to protect against market volatility, there are a number of benefits to investing offshore. However, ‘investing offshore’ masks a number of variances which really should be revealed: offshore investing may relate to an investment fund being ‘domiciled’ abroad, which is legal, but offshore investing is sometimes cited when people attempt to remove their income from tax authorities, which is not legal. Whilst some who are caught in the crosshairs of this latest scandals have not, necessarily, been accused of operating illegally, it is really the close connection between the business and political elite and these tax-avoiding schemes which is causing the scandal to have such an impact. Whilst allegations of illegality will likely be forthcoming, at the moment the focus is on both a. proximity between the scheme and the elite, and also b. the issue of declaration, as witnessed by the story enveloping Lord Ashcroft at the moment. Yet, the proximity-issue points to a much larger issue, and one which, rather regrettably, is difficult to paint in a positive manner.

The former British Prime Minister, David Cameron, once opined that tax avoidance – in relation to the comedian Jimmy Carr being outed as using an aggressive tax-avoidance scheme – is ‘morally wrong’, with his successor, Theresa May, vowing to combat tax-avoidance almost immediately after taking office. However, the first point to note is that it will be incredibly interesting to hear Theresa May’s responses to this latest leak, one which puts some of her Party’s most revered figures in the centre of the scandal (one doubts she will be as forthcoming this time). The second point is more abstract; the absolutely incredible amount of people and corporations caught up in this scandal can only tell us one thing: tax avoidance, or at least doing everything possible to reduce one’s tax burden, is inherent within society (particularly, rather obviously, for those with large reserves of funds). This should not really be revelatory, but the response to the Paradise Papers suggests that maybe it is. This latest instance of proof that influential people systematically ‘game the system’, should be the spark that initiates deep-rooted reform of the market-centred society we live in, but one should be able to realise how fanciful that thought is when looking at the impact of the Panama Papers; that is quite a way to end on the back of what, to all intents and purposes, should have been an era-defining revelation in its own right, but now represents par-for-the-course.

Nigar Hashimzade, PhD. Professor of Economics, Durham University Business School:

The recently leaked documents yet again brought to light offshore investments by firms and individuals, many of whom are politicians and celebrities. Most of the tax-reducing arrangements mentioned in these documents, however, are perfectly legal. Among many questions this may raise, two are “Is investing abroad a bad thing?” and “Do tax laws favour the rich?       “

Investment in global financial markets is similar to global trade. Both remove territorial constraints to economic activities and bring benefits. Investing abroad should be thus no more objectionable than buying imported cars or imported vegetables. However, offshore opportunities are not available to the majority of taxpayers, - typically, they are for very large investments, - so the issue here is the underlying inequality of opportunities, rather than an evil nature of global markets.

According to the official statistics, in 2017/18 tax year the top one percent of UK taxpayers earned 12% of the total pre-tax income and paid 27.7% of the total income tax revenue. The bottom fifty percent earned 25.3% of total pre-tax income and contributed 9.7% of the total income tax revenues. In 1999-2000 these numbers were 11% and 21.3% for the top one percent, and for the bottom fifty percent they were 23.8% and 11.6%, respectively. This reflects growing progressivity of the UK personal income tax, which also appears to have outpaced the growth in income gap.

The pattern is even stronger in the United States. There, in 2014 the top one percent of taxpayers earned 20.58% of total income and paid 39.48% of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent earned 11.27% of total income and contributed 2.75% of all income taxes. For each dollar earned, the top one percent taxpayers paid 27.1 cents in tax, whereas the taxpayers in the bottom fifty percent paid 3.5 cents, - a more than seven-fold difference.

Thus, a highly progressive income tax system in the UK and in the US leads to the highest burden of income tax falling on the richest taxpayers. What these numbers also tell us is that the income distribution in both countries is highly unequal. This is why rich taxpayers have opportunities unavailable to many, - in particular, they can afford incurring high costs of offshore investments that give them higher net returns. The task for the governments is to address the roots of inequality, and this goes far beyond changes in the tax law.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

With recent news that the pound took a tumble over the weekend, partly attributed to the future of Theresa May as Prime Minister and the upcoming EU summit, rumours that China is looking to open its finance sector up to more foreign ownership, and updates on the latest trade announcement being teased by US President Trump after he pretty much told Japan they ‘will be the no.2 economy’ here are some comments from expert sources on trade worldwide.

Rebecca O’Keefe, Head of Investing at interactive investor, told Finance Monthly: “European markets have opened relatively flat, with the FTSE 100 the main beneficiary after sterling’s latest fall, as pressure mounts on Theresa May who is struggling to maintain her grip on power. The gravity defying US market has been the driving force behind surging global markets, so investors will be hoping that the Republicans can get their act together and deliver key US tax reform to help support the path of growth.

In sharp contrast to Persimmon’s lacklustre results and a gloomy report from the RICS last week, Taylor Wimpey’s trading update is much stronger and paints a relatively rosy picture of the current housing market. Confirmation of favourable market conditions and high demand for new houses is good, although there are early warning signs that the situation might deteriorate, with slowing sales rates and a drop in its order book. Share prices have already come off recent highs, amid fears that the sector had got ahead of itself and investors will be hoping for more help from the Chancellor in next week’s budget to try and provide a new catalyst for the sector.

Gambling companies have been making out like one armed bandits since the summer, as expectations grow that the Government will compromise on a much higher figure for fixed odds betting terminals than the £2 maximum suggested during this year’s election campaign. However, while betting shops are the focus of attention for politicians, the real action can be found on smartphones and elsewhere – with surging revenues and profits being driven from online betting. Companies who have got their online strategy right are the significant winners and although Ladbrokes Coral has seen a 12% jump in digital revenues, the comparison against online competitors such as bet365 and Sky Bet, who both reported huge revenue growth last week, has left the market slightly disappointed and sent the share price lower.”

Mihir Kapadia, CEO and Founder of Sun Global Investments, had this to say: “The last couple of days have seen two of the big global economies China and Germany report large trade surpluses underlining their robust performance over the year. In contrast, the UK economy has been on a downbeat weakening trend as Brexit and political uncertainties lead to declining economic confidence and slower growth.

Data released last month showed August’s trade deficit at £5.6 billion, and in comparison, today’s data of £3.45 billion for September has been a better than expected improvement, but nevertheless indicative of an additive gap that appears unlikely to be closed anytime soon.

While Brexit uncertainty has weakened the pound against its major peers, it had helped boost exports but in turn has also made imports more expensive. This is the short term “J Curve” effect which is often seen after a devaluation.  Over the long term, the weaker pound is perhaps likely to help the trade deficit as exports rise (due to the lower pound and higher growth in the global economy) while import growth slows down due to the slowdown in the UK.”

Velshi & Ruhle grade the economy's performance under President Trump.

Below Kathleen Brook, Research Director at City Index, talks Finance Monthly through the current markets environment, referencing US stock, bonds, tech, crypto and oil.

As we reach the middle of the week, there are a few signs that stocks could have a harder climb from here. After reaching record highs earlier on Tuesday, the S&P 500 closed the day lower. Advancers vs. decliners were pretty even on the day, with 243 advancers compared with 255 declining stocks, the biggest loser was Tripadvisor, which sunk on the back of growth concerns. The most striking thing about the US stock market today is not the individual movers, but instead the lead indicators and the bond market.

Lead indicators head lower

The two classic lead indicators for US stocks include the Dow Jones Transport Average and the small cap Russell 2000. The Dow Jones Transport index peaked on 13^th October and has been falling since then, it fell through its 50-day moving average on Tuesday, which is a bearish sign and could signal further losses ahead. The decline in the Russell 2000 hasn’t been as steep, but it peaked on October 5^th and sold off sharply on Tuesday as investors seemed to rush to ditch small cap stocks after yet another record high was reached.

These two lead indicators have not been able to muster enough strength to recoup recent losses, which could be a sign of investor fatigue further down the pipeline. If the selloff in these two indices continues then it is hard to see how the blue chip indices can sustain momentum as we move through November.

The bond market: a health check for stocks

The other warning sign could be coming from the 10-year bond yield. It has fallen more than 15 basis points since peaking towards the end of October. This is in contrast with the 2-year yield, which has been climbing over the same period and is up some 5 basis ponts so far this month. This has pushed the 2-10-year yield curve up to its highest level since 2007, which is typical in a market where the Fed has embarked on a rate hiking cycle, even this mild one that Janet Yellen started in 2015. Rising yields tends to mean woe for stocks, hence investors may now try to book profit instead of instigating fresh long positions as we move to the end of the year.

However, we believe that it is not as simple as rising yields spooking the market. The decline in the 10-year yield could also be relevant for stock investors, especially if it is a sign that the bond market has lowered its expectations for Trump’s tax plan and thus reduced long term growth expectations. If 10-year yields keep falling – and they are testing key support at 2.31% which is the 200-day sma – then it is hard to see how the stock market won’t follow suit and sell off on the back of tax reform stalemate in Congress. Thus, the Trump tax premium could come and bite markets on the proverbial.

Is tech the canary in the coalmine?

Tech is worth watching at this junction after massive gains so far this year. Already bond prices have started to fall for some of the major tech players including Apple, as more supply has weighed on bond yields. Is this a sign that the market could, finally, be falling out of love with tech?

What can the Vix and Bitcoin tell us about markets?

Before predicting market Armageddon, the Vix still remains below 10. Although it doesn’t usually stay low indefinitely, we want to see it move higher before confirming our fears about global risk appetite. Bitcoin is also worth watching. Before anyone can call it a safe haven we need to see how it performs in a sharp market sell off. So far this week it is down nearly $550, so if you are looking for volatility, bitcoin is the place to find it. It is hard to pinpoint the reason for the decline, maybe the market is getting nervous ahead of the upcoming fork later this month? Or maybe the market sees Bitcoin becoming mass market, both the CME and the CBOE are readying themselves for the arrival of Bitcoin futures, as a threat to its price gains? Who knows, but if traditional stock markets sell off, I will be watching to see how Bitcoin reacts and if it has any traits of a safe haven (recent price performance suggests not.)

What next for the oil price?

This week appears to be oil’s chance to steal the limelight. After surging to a high of $64.65 at one point on Tuesday, Brent crude lost $1 by session close as the market re-assessed the geopolitical risks that have propelled the oil price higher, while the fundamental picture remains unchanged. While we acknowledge that the price of oil cannot simply rise on the back of the Saudi anti-corruption crackdown, we still think that there could be some gas in the tank that could send Brent towards $70 – a key technical level - after all, the sharp increase in the price of Brent crude actually began in early October, well before talk of Opec production cut extensions and Saudi corruption purges.

Ahead today, economic data is thin on the ground, so we expect price action to take centre stage. On Thursday Brexit talks resume, this could lend some volatility to GBP, which has been one of the top performers in the G10 FX space so far this week.

Here John Milliken, Chief Operating Officer at Infomedia, delves into the statistics and facts of online, mobile and digital payments, how they differ between regions, and why.

According to a report by UNCTAD - the United Nations body on international trade and development - online, mobile and digital currency payment systems are set to overtake credit and debit cards as the most popular ways to pay in e-commerce worldwide by 2019. The research suggests that the share of credit and debit cards in global payments will drop to 46% by 2019 from the 51% forecasted three years ago.

Last year, China’s mobile revenue hit $5.5 trillion, a figure that is 50 times more than the size of America’s $112 billion market, according to consulting firm iResearch. Similarly, in the last year alone, Japan’s e-commerce market was valued at $89 billion, with half of that coming from mobile.

By comparison, in the UK and US, many brands, from retailers to publishers, continue to struggle to deliver a mobile experience that enables a convenient and simple payment method and encourages consumers to spend. As a result, despite the fact that mobile devices have consistently driven the highest levels of engagement compared to any other platform, it continues to experience the lowest conversion rates.

So, what is it the East is doing differently to the West that has caused mobile revenue to sky rocket?

The Asian Mobile Market

The Asian technology industry - particularly mobile - has pulled ahead of what we’ve seen in the West. China and Japan, like many other developing markets, have not followed the pattern of the West in going from physical shops to PC to laptop to smartphone. Instead many consumers are going straight to smartphones without previously owning a fixed internet connection.

According to Zenith’s Mobile Advertising Forecasts for 2017, mobile accounts for 73% of time spent using the internet globally, however in the UK this figure is just 57%. By comparison, in China, internet users reached 668 million in June 2015, and 549 million of those users (almost 90%) access the internet primarily via their mobile devices. In other words, the number of internet users in China is more than twice the population of the US and almost the population of Europe, and most of those individuals are walking around with a smartphone.

With these figures in mind, it’s clear that mobile is prevalent in China - it’s a way of life, not just a medium of communication. On mobile, consumers talk, text, shop, order food, hail taxis, book travel, pay for products and services, deposit money into their bank or transfer money, amongst other things. Most Chinese companies have recognised this, and build their advertising and marketing, customer communication, shopping, purchasing, and even their payment programmes around mobile. In fact, about half of all e-commerce in China happens on mobile, compared to just over a fifth in the US and around a third in the UK.

As a result, rather than focusing on card payments, merchants and mobile operators in China and Japan have worked together to develop truly frictionless mobile payment processes. In China in particular, much of this is driven by mobile payment services via social messaging service WeChat and AliPay, its paypal equivalent. In fact, Alipay recently signed with Starbucks to enable e-payment at all 2,800 Starbucks locations, while at a KFC, diners can pay via Alipay using facial recognition technology. In Japan however, DCB is the most popular payment method accounting for more than 50% of all ‘online’ transactions - a number that has risen consistently over the past five years as more consumers move away from card payments.

It is clear there is an opportunity for brands to deliver the same conversion rates on mobile seen in Japan and China if they are able to adapt to behavioural change. And although the Chinese market appears to be different to the West, it has actually just reached the predicted next stage for all markets quicker. By acknowledging that consumers want the quickest and easiest payment processes, we can also deliver an experience that is frictionless and encourages customers to convert from browsing to spending on mobile. In summary, it is only when brands begin to deliver and offer a mobile first experience that they too, will be able to maximise on the mobile opportunity.

Grandstanding politicians are misinformed, hypocritical and “demonstrate monumental naivety” on the Paradise Papers debate, affirms the boss of one of the world’s largest independent financial services organisations.

The comments from Nigel Green, the Founder and CEO of deVere Group, come as the British leader of the opposition party, Corbyn, and the veteran US Senator and former presidential hopeful, Sanders, amongst others, speak out publicly in the wake of the leak of more than 13.4 million documents, dubbed the Paradise Papers.

Nigel Green explains: “The heightened level of sensationalism is out of control, masking the reality of the situation, and is being fuelled by misinformed, politicians out to score cynical political points.

“Corbyn implies the Queen, rock stars, and multinational firms, amongst others, must apologise for benefitting from legal, tax-efficient schemes.  Meanwhile, Sanders maintains that money in offshore accounts illustrates the movement towards an ‘international oligarchy’.

“This hyperbole is unhelpful, misleading and demonstrates their monumental naivety.

“It’s time to set the record straight.”

He continues: “The murky world that these and other politicians and others are inaccurately describing is not one that I recognise.

“In the vast majority of international financial centres are now transparent and appropriately regulated. They provide a sought-after service for individuals – and not just the uber rich ones– and organisations across the globe.

“Indeed, they are an important, legitimate and beneficial cog in the global economy.”

Mr Green goes on to say: “Internationally-mobile individuals and firms typically find that offshore accounts are a sensible option because of their convenience. They offer centralised, safe, flexible and worldwide access to their funds no matter where they live and no matter to which country the person or firm might relocate in the future.  Also, they provide a greater selection of multi-currency savings and investment options.

“Other, often ignored, benefits also include that they can assist firms from to avoid double taxation on the same income, and that they offer legitimate financial refuge for those in countries where there is economic, social and political turmoil.”

Mr Green adds: “For high-profile politicians to complain - and to take the moral high ground – on this, when it is they who have the powers to change tax laws and regimes, smacks of political opportunism and hypocrisy.

“The notion that the majority of individuals and firms in these allegations are ‘getting away’ with mitigating their taxes liabilities legally is absurd. It is akin to someone ‘getting away’ with driving at 50mph in a 50mph zone.”

“Tax is a legal impost and it is individuals and corporations duty to comply within the laws and organise their financial affairs in order to pay what they are required legally.”

The deVere CEO concludes: “Whilst the ‘Paradise Papers’ do indeed highlight that more needs to be done to increase efficiency and cooperation in some regards and jurisdictions, the current furore is distracting attention and resources away from the serious global issue of tax evasion.”

(Source: deVere Group)

Since 1968, there have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths on US territory compared to 1,396,733 war deaths since the founding of the United States[i]. This means that up to 2015, according to data collected by Politifact, the death toll for citizens and visitors of the United States from domestic gun violence exceeds that of all the deaths from all the wars the US has participated in since its inception.

The statistics on US gun violence remain mind-boggling to many. A study by Health Affairs states that more than 100,000 people are shot each year in the US. 350 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings[ii] this year, according to data gathered by GunsAreCool - a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in the country. In comparison, 432 people were killed in mass shootings in 2016 and 369 in 2015, which means that on average, more than one person is killed in a mass shooting for every day of the year. According to the Small Arms Survey via the Guardian, America has 4.4% of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.

Win $25 Free With $25 Kroger Gift Cards

For both individuals and society as a whole, gun violence imposes heavy psychological burdens. The media regularly highlight the emotional cost, and rightly so. But what is the economic cost of US gun violence? What is the financial cost to society from all that carnage?

The price tag

Back in 2012, Mother Jones, the liberal magazine, launched a three-year investigation, following the Colorado cinema shooting rampage in July, when James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70. The magazine went through the combined annual impact of a total of about 11,000 murders, approximately 22,000 suicides and 75,000 injuries that are the result of gunfire. The findings of the investigation showed that the annual cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence to the US was $229 billion, representing 1.4% of total gross domestic product. In comparison, obesity in the US costs the country $224bn, which makes the economic impact of gun violence higher than that of obesity. These $229bn are also the equivalent of the size of Portugal’s economy or the equivalent of $700 for every American citizen.

The study notes that about $8.6bn is direct cost, including emergency care and hospital charges, the expense of police investigations, the price of court proceedings, as well as jail costs. According to the investigation, $169bn goes to the estimated impact of victims’ quality of life, based on jury awards for pain and suffering in cases of wrongful injury and death, and the rest $49bn account for lost wages and spending.

It is of course worth mentioning the positive economic impact that the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry has on the country, which according to IBIS World was $13.5 billion in 2015, with a $1.5 billion profit. However, it is also worth pointing out the distinction between the profit from manufacturing the very products used in shootings, in comparison to the financial loss seen due to gun violence.

The impact on US firearm manufacturers 

In recent years, firearms sales tend to increase and gun stocks tend to rally in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings in particular. Shares on gun manufacturers such as Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR, +1.91%) and Smith & Wesson maker American Outdoor Brands (AOBC, +0.74%) rose sharply right after the mass shooting in Las Vegas from earlier this month, when 59 people were killed and hundreds were injured. Only a few hours after the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, shares of Sturm, Ruger & Co. rose 3%, American Outdoor Brands jumped 5%, while Vista Outdoor (VSTO, -0.67%) popped 2%. The explanation behind this is quite simple - investors predict a rise in sales as people buy firearms to defend themselves and their families in the event of another potential attack. Sales are also likely to spike due to the fear that an attack may result in law changes and guns becoming harder to buy.

Despite the fact that mass shootings lead to increased firearm sales, research by Anandasivam Gopal and Brad N. Greenwood published on 28^th May 2017, points out that when mass shootings occur, investors appear to be reducing their valuations of publicly traded firearms manufacturers – an effect driven by the threat of impending regulation. However, these tendencies were most prevalent in 2009 and 2010, but seem to disappear in later events, indicating the possible markets’ acceptance of mass shootings as the ‘new normal’.

How do local economies respond to increased gun violence?

A report by the Urban Institute, published on 1^st June 2017, found that surges in gun violence in the US can ‘significantly reduce the growth of new retail and service businesses and slow home value appreciation’. According to the study, higher levels of neighbourhood gun violence drives depopulation, discourages business and decreases property values, resulting in fewer retail and service establishments, fewer new jobs, lower home values, credit scores and homeownership rates. The report features interviews with local stakeholders (homeowners, renters, business owners, non-profits, etc.), who confirm the findings, which state that  ‘Business owners in neighbourhoods that experience heightened gun violence reported additional challenges and costs, and residents and business owners alike asserted that gun violence hurts housing prices and drives people to relocate from or avoid moving to affected neighbourhoods’. In Minneapolis for example, the report finds that each additional gun homicide in a census tract in a given year was associated with 80 fewer jobs the next year, while average home values in Minneapolis census tracts dropped by $22,000.

Is gun violence really the ‘new normal’?

It seems as if the US lawmakers, and indeed large swathes of the US population, are now willing to accept gun violence as a part of their daily lives in a manner that may shock others. But what is more surprising is that a country founded on capitalism permits this as the status quo in the knowledge that gun violence is having a severe and negative impact on the US economy. From hospital fees through to deterring business investment, mass shootings and gun crime are the cause of considerable financial losses to the United States. These acts of violence cost the country a great deal of money, but most importantly – they cost lives. And although markets have seemed to accept mass shootings as ‘the new normal’, should this be the case for the rest of us too?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

[i] That figure includes American lives lost in the revolutionary war, the Mexican war, the civil war (Union and Confederate, estimate), the Spanish-American war, the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, as well as other conflicts, including in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti.

[ii] Mass shooting being defined by the FBI as any incident where at least four persons are killed with a firearm in a random act with little or no premeditation.

Donald Trump is set to make a decision on the Chair of the Federal Reserve by Thursday this week. This decision will shape a big part of the US President’s economic legacy in the job.

The current chair of the Federal Reserve was appointed by President Obama in 2014 and is the first woman to hold the position.

Below Finance Monthly hears from a few expert sources on their thoughts surrounding the future prospects and overall impact of the appointment of a new US Fed Chief.

Joel Kruger, Currency Strategist, LMAX Exchange:

We worry investors could be setting themselves up for a letdown on this expectation the appointment of Jerome Powell as the next Fed Chair will generate a sustainable rally in risk assets. There is a danger associated with what has become a fixation on 'one dimensional role designation.' Central bankers should be neither inherently hawkish or dovish. The Fed's responsibility is to ensure it works in the best way possible to achieve its goals of maximum employment and price stability.

Considering where we're at in the cycle, there's simply little room for dovish central banking into 2018, much in the same way there was little room for hawkish central banking back in 2008, at the onset of the financial markets crisis. We believe we've reached the point where dovish leanings will no longer pair well with effective monetary policy, given an economic outlook contending with the very nasty combination of full employment, financial stability risk (from overinflated stocks), and the threat of rising inflation. We would also add that the prospect of Powell as the next Fed Chair is one that has been played out ad nauseam. This alone leaves risk assets vulnerable and exposed to a sell the fact reaction, albeit after what is likely to be an initial wave of euphoria.

Mihir Kapadia CEO and Founder, Sun Global Investments:

After months of speculation, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Federal Reserve chairman seems likely to be Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell. A former investment banker with Treasury experience during the Bush administration, Powell looks to be a reliable choice for the role. The markets have reacted positively to the suggestion that Powell is the frontrunner in recent weeks following the President’s interviews with each of the candidates.

However, Powell’s succession to the Fed chair is not necessarily secure. Other candidates include former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, seen as a more hawkish alternative to the polices of Yellen ad Stanford Professor John Taylor who would definitely be seen as more hawkish. Gary Cohn, Trump’s economic adviser, was also touted for the job, although the President has indicated his preference for Cohn to remain in the White House. Furthermore, current Fed chair Janet Yellen still remains a viable possibility.

Trump’s relationship with Yellen has been tricky to define. On the campaign trail, Trump was highly critical of Yellen and her tenure, and accusing her of being political. However, his stance has softened considerably since becoming President, praising her both personally and professionally, leading some to believe that he could yet choose her for another term. Of all the candidates, Jerome Powell represents a pragmatic compromise for the President – he represents a break from the past and a shift towards Trump’s administration whilst representing continuity as his policies are unlikely to differ substantially from Yellen’s. Whatever the President’s decision, the Fed chair will play a powerful role in shaping the economic identity of Trump’s America.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

Business travel has its own set of wonderful perks. An opportunity to get out of the office and see the world, corporate exploration allows you to do business in a brand-new city, as well as having some fun while you’re out there. But where are the best destinations in which to do business? Here, Irma Hunkeler at BlueGlass, brings you ten places for your consideration.

10. Instanbul

Instanbul, Turkey. Photo: Moyan Brenn/Flickr

It’s a cliche but it’s true: east meets west in Istanbul, and this is particularly true when it comes to business. The city has acted as a central connection point for companies from different ends of the globe, making it one of the world’s most diverse and thriving corporate destinations. It’s also a place full of beautiful ruins, amazing street food and fantastic people. Put your negotiation skills to the test with a haggle at a street market.

Main industries: Textile production, food, oil, electronics

Where to go: Hagia Sophia, Basilica Cistern, Aya Sofya

9. Frankfurt

Frankfurt, Germany Photo: Pixabay.com

Long known as a major city for aviation - it has one the largest airports in Europe - Frankfurt is also establishing itself as a place for a number of other industries. With Frankfurt the seat of the European Central Bank, the German city is of international importance when it comes to the European financial services industry. It’s also a fantastic place to come and do business in.

Main industries: Financial services, telecommunications, IT, biotech, creative services

Where to go: Stadel Museum, Kaiserdom, Frankfurt Stock Exchange

8. Hong Kong

Hong Kong Photo: Pixabay.com

Alongside London and New York, city-state Hong Kong is one the globe’s leading business destinations. A combination of the free flow of information and free market policies make it a place conducive to running successful businesses, so it’s not hard to see why so many companies have activities here. What’s more, Asia’s most popular city for international business is one of the least corrupt economies in the world.

Main industries: Financial services, trading, tourism, professional services

Where to go: Victoria PEak, Hong Kong Museum of History, street markets

7. Mexico City

Mexico City, Mexico Photo: Pixabay.com

The heart of the Americas is one of the most thriving corporate destinations in south America. Named as one of the world’s best start-up hubs, Mexico is known as a great place to do business, chiefly because of the city’s sociability. It’s an easy city in which to set up shop and get to know people, so it’s no surprise that companies from the US are starting to call Mexico home.

Main industries: Pharmaceuticals, technology, financial services, manufacturing

Where to go: National Museum of Anthropology, Chichen Itza, Palacio de Bellas Artes.

6. New York

New York City, US Photo: Pixabay.com

Where to start when it comes to the Big Apple? This metropolis is home to companies from every part of the globe. Almost every big name has a presence here, in some form or another. As well as established players, the city also has an emerging start-up scene. After a day spent hustling in Manhattan, head to one of New York’s world-class museums before seeing a Broadway show.

Main industries: Financial services, media, technology

Where to go: Central Park, Empire State Building, Museum of Modern Art

Click next to see our top 5 business destinations

[pag]