020 7099 8605
Brilliance Financial Planning Logo

Subscribe to Scott Taylor's Blogg using RSS  Subscribe to Scott Taylor's Blog using RSS

Add to Technorati Favorites

 

Banks Find Giving Good Advice Unprofitable

Posted by: Scott Taylor Posted Date: Monday, 31 January 2011 12:17
Two weeks ago, Barclays Bank was fined £7.7m by the Financial Services Authority and faces having to compensate some of its hapless customers to the tune of £60m.  Two issues of note (at least) arise from this story, the collective inability or desire of banks to give to give their customers good advice and the fact that there exist in this day and age products which are poorly described.  The two are linked.
 
It is perfectly possible for an investment management company to create a fund and give it name containing the word cautious or absolute return (implying no loss of money) and the fund to be nothing of the sort.  This, apparently, is perfectly acceptable practice, although the FSA has now decided it merits a bit of a look.  This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to buy an investment without advice. 
 
Now, many of these funds will pay a large commission to the organisation which sell them, which helps to incentivise the exploitation of well off, vulnerable people, who are also often elderly.  If your friendly bank ‘financial adviser’ suggests that you shift your life savings into something with the name ‘cautious’, you would probably think you can take it all at face value; does an adviser not act in your interest?
 
The problem is that training advisers adequately to be able to understand the products, bearing in mind they are not always accurately described, is inconveniently expensive and you need a lot of them to ‘advise’ all of the customers of a high street bank.  So, the suspicion will always exist that they are inadequate knowledgeable and wrongly motivated and required to use duff products.  Is it any wonder that it often ends badly?
 
Thankfully, they are often required to put things right but I do wonder at how much distress it would cause worrying for two or more years what you are going to live on now that your trusted bank has caused you to lose a lot of money.
 
Anyway, Barclays, at least have decided that making a profit and giving good advice are incompatible with their business model and are withdrawing from it at branch level.  There are worries that it will leave many of the less well off without access to advice (Barclays will continue to target the better off, so look out) but I have to say it is the type of advice that most people would profit from avoiding.
 
The other issue is the reluctance to tackle regulation of products, to which, in the UK, we have a very laissez-faire attitude.  It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the financial product manufacturers can produce almost any product, however toxic, and market it to the public.  Regulation focuses on ensuring that advisers are responsible for the suitability of the product.  However, we have product providers have an interest in marketing their products to advisers in a way that encourages lots of product sales and it is always possible that an adviser will not notice, for example, that the cautious fund is anything but.
 
If Ford were allowed to manufacture a car with a spike sticking out of the steering wheel, with all of the legal responsibility lying with the dealership, we would pretty soon become outraged as a society.  Ford always has to take responsibility for the safety of its products, even if they are driven badly, so they have to fit seat belts and airbags and make sure that they do as little harm as possible to the occupants and pedestrians.  This applies to almost all products and we have become used to manufacturers being required to follow regulations and behave responsibly.
 
Why should the same not apply to financial products?  You can walk into any branch of a high street bank and be sold a ‘structured product’ which most people, especially the ‘advisers’ would struggle to understand.  The creator of the product will only find themselves in hot water in exceptional circumstances.  Twenty-five years of regulation of financial advice has done almost nothing to reduce your chances of being mislead and ripped off.  There are signs, though, that the FSA are, at long last, questioning whether their stance is really in the public’s interest.  I only hope that they find the answer to be as self evident as I do.

Banks Withdraw From Financial Advice

Posted by: Scott Taylor Posted Date: Thursday, 27 January 2011 15:24
Having spent decades trying to convince us that they can be trusted with our money and that our friendly bank manager (call centre) is best place to give financial advice, the banks have decided to exit this market.
 
This is being forced upon them by the increasing difficulty for them of making enough profit from ‘financial planning’, which I assume in the banking lexicon means flogging a product you don’t understand to someone who doesn’t need it for a nice commission.  That fact that much of their planning has resulted in large, unexpected losses for their hapless customers leading to enormous regulatory fines and compensation bills may have something to do with it, of course.
 
Where will these people go now for their planning needs?  Well, if many of them go nowhere, it may be to their benefit.  The FSA estimates that poor advice and selling of financial products costs British investors between £400million and £600million every year so avoiding poor financial advice (a readily available variety, it seems) can benefit your health.
 
The banks have identified that there is a suitable target audience for their best efforts, however, the wealthier.  You have been warned.

Germany Is Different But Is It Better?

Posted by: Scott Taylor Posted Date: Wednesday, 26 January 2011 09:44
Germans are often held up to the rest of us as paragons of virtue, with good reason.  They are more productive, export more and save more than much of Europe, which is left trailing in their wake.
 
However, it is not clear how well their behaviour would translate, especially to the UK, and how long they can maintain their advantage.  Looking at their export success, much of it is built on the fact that they have locked the Eurozone into a very advantageous exchange rate but this is crippling their neighbours and may lead to much of the money being generated by the Germans being used to help others in the Eurozone restructure.  Quite how long these imbalances can be tolerated is difficult to say, if weaker Eurozone economies manage an effective, if not actual, devaluation, this will erode much of Germany’s advantages.  Although, I wouldn’t rush to write them off as Germany has shown an ability to prosper with a disadvantageous exchange rate.
 
Another oft quoted virtue is that Germans save a great deal, certainly when compared to the Anglo-Saxon economies.  But, fewer than half of all Germans own their own home, whereas the likes of the UK, US and Australia have owner occupation rates well above 70%.
 
Now, you can argue the benefits, or otherwise, of home ownership, and it’s not all roses, but it does mean, for example, that people retiring will often have a great deal of capital in their home and no need to pay rent.  Renting is more flexible and can lead to less hardship in the event of unemployment as benefit systems often favour rent over mortgage payments.  But it does mean that more property is owned by fewer people or institutions, rather than spread more widely through the population, so there is a concentration of property wealth.  Just because it isn’t owner occupied, doesn’t mean that it isn’t owned.
 
So, Germans are more likely to have their wealth in the form of savings, rather than property, and who can blame them if they do not have the security of ownership?  It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are more virtuous, though, does it?

Squeezing commodity prices

Posted by: Scott Taylor Posted Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 16:47
We all know that soaring commodity prices (up threefold this decade) are a significant cause of the inflation problems in the developed economies. What is less clear is whether this is a real problem and, if so, what can be done.
 
Rising demand, most especially in the emerging economies, for commodities which have an inelastic supply, forces prices upwards. It's not as if we are going to run out of anything soon, it's just difficult to dig minerals out any quicker or grow more grain in a hurry. Also, supplies of both are bedevilled by often being located in places which just seem beset by natural disasters or war.
 
So if that's the problem, what can central banks do?
 
Well, by raising interest rates, they may increase the value of their currency against the dollar, which lowers local inflation by hitting competitiveness. That approach will hardly help the US, though, and if they follow suit, the developed economies are all back in the same boat. Increased dollar prices may reduce demand in the developed world adding a further actual price reduction at the expense of slowing growth in those countries. Bad news if you're banking on China to drag us along.
 
Perhaps, western central banks could act to slow their economies enough to slow global demand and commodity prices. It is hard, though, to imagine how much pain the likes of Europe and the US would have to endure to make this work.
 
After a couple of decades believing that they controlled inflation, central banks may have to get used to the idea that they can do little more than tinker whilst they wait for markets to turn.
 
That should be a much bigger worry for the likes of the Bank of England than discovering that they can't forecast for toffee.

Inflation or Austerity?

Posted by: Scott Taylor Posted Date: Wednesday, 19 January 2011 19:22
Given a straight choice between inflation and austerity, most people would select the former over the latter, it seems like a no brainer.
 
For those with a lot of debt, such as the British government, a period of higher inflation could be a godsend as it would greatly reduce the value of the outstanding debt.  No British government since the Twenties has actually reduced spending in nominal terms, the best they have achieved has been a short term freeze.  It seems unlikely that the current proposed spending cuts will be anything of the sort, but a freeze for a year or so coupled with inflation would go a long way towards putting the public finances back on a firm footing.
 
Thankfully, the current rate of inflation (3.7%) is both well below problem rates in the past, such as 20%+ in the Seventies, and has not yet been accompanied by rising wages.  In fact, wages are lagging behind inflation leading to a reduction in living standards.  As long as wage rises remain subdued, the government and the Bank of England can afford to remain sanguine about inflation until they feel the economy and banks are back in a more normal state.
 
If the government can keep a lid on wage rises in the more unionised public sector we should find ourselves in more comfortable territory in the next year or two.
 
In any case, it is not clear what can be done to lower inflation.  In part, inflation has been caused by higher taxes, which serve to drain money out of private spending into, we anticipate, public debt repayment, which is hardly inflationary.  In part, inflation has been caused by rising global commodity markets in tandem with a 25% depreciation of Sterling.
 
If the BoE raises base rates from 0.5% to 1%, it is hard to see that it would have significant impact on the real economy.  Very few people indeed can borrow at anything like that rate and this has been exploited by the banks to rebuild their profitability.  It will probably take quite a few rate rises before there is a significant impact on borrowing costs, all that may happen is the ‘normal’ relationship between base rates and retail loan rates is restored.  When that happens we may, at last, be out of the woods.
 
In the meantime, inflation will persist and the government will fail to make the cuts promised and very few people will mind.

Euro Bond Markets Make the Running

Posted by: Scott Taylor Posted Date: Tuesday, 11 January 2011 17:00
Eurozone governments (which really means Germany and, perhaps, France) seem oddly unable or unwilling to make any real efforts to resolve the crisis in the Eurozone bond markets.
 
Firstly, it may be worth addressing exactly what a bond is as they are hardly part of everyone’s day to day life and the markets are not tracked every night on the news as the share markets are.  A bond is a loan.  You lend a party, in this case, say, Portugal, a sum of money for a specified period of time in return for regular interest payments.  Like any loan, how much interest you charge will depend partly on how much you trust the other party to pay the interest to you and the principal back to you at the end of the term.  The riskier the loan, the higher the interest you will require.
 
The problem in the Eurozone is that those who lend (who constitute the bond market) are concerned that some of the borrower countries may not be able to afford to repay their debts.  As a consequence, borrowing for those countries is becoming more expensive and hard to find.  Now, these countries have, in effect, a series of interest only loans to when they fall due, they have to find all of the money to repay them or another borrower to lend them more.
 
Since the start of the Euro, borrowing has been cheap and plentiful for member countries as the markets viewed them as having a similar level of probity to Germany, everyone’s favourite, so governments (e.g. Greece) have been borrowing like no tomorrow.  Other countries didn’t borrow too much but their banks did and they have had to borrow to bail them out.
 
Now, sovereign states have borrowed more than they can afford since time immemorial and regularly defaulted.  There are two main ways in which they have defaulted in the past; soft and hard.  A soft default could be brought about because they allow the currency to devalue, meaning that overseas investors lose out, or they allow high inflation, meaning everyone loses out.  In a hard default, the borrower would just refuse to pay interest or principle when it falls due, causing the lenders to lose money.
 
For countries which borrow in their own currency, the soft default will be more likely and continues to happen all the time, just imagine you had converted Swiss Francs to lend in dollars.  Within limits, this does not seem to cause panic in the markets.
 
If, however, the country has not lent in its own currency (many emerging economies have to borrow in dollars), it could find that its payments become impossible to afford, even if it prints ever greater amounts of its own currency.  In this case, it may just have to default as happened in South America in recent history, causing investors to lose their cash.
 
If the country no longer needs to borrow, this may not matter but it is rarely the case.  Countries with debt problems almost always need to continue to borrow more and when markets close to them, they have to call in the IMF or another supra-national body to tide them over, often at the expense of promising to change their ways.
 
So, back to the Eurozone.  They cannot engineer a soft default as the individual countries do not control their own currency or monetary policy (interest rates and inflation).  They are also bound by treaty not to default.  Also, Eurozone bonds were considered to be extremely low risk investments so Eurozone banks hold loads of them to support their capital requirements.  If Greece defaults, it just creates a banking crisis in Germany, for example.
 
One option would be for some countries to leave the Euro but that could cause more problems than it solves, money in Greece would hardly stick around to be devalued, would it?
 
Another solution, and the one being pursued, is to restructure these economies to prevent them having to borrow more so that they can pay back their debt to more reasonable levels.  That means that the population of the country suffer hardship to ensure that bond holders do not.  The government tears up its promises to the electorate in order to keep those made to (often) foreign investors.  Not a message guaranteed to generate votes.
 
Given that many of the problem Eurozone members are much less productive than the Germans, they will also have to endure a reduction in real wages (not easy with low inflation) to re-establish their competitiveness.
 
If the Eurozone politicians do not wrest control back from the markets with a bit of creative thinking, they could find that a long hot summer in southern Europe leads to mob rule and enforced change from below.
Client Access

Track your portfolio performance online

Login

Don't Miss Out!

Our FREE newsletter gives you the inside scoop on what's hot in personal finance.

Brilliance Financial Planning Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

© 2008 Brilliance Financial Planning Ltd. Registered Office: 110 Gloucester Avenue, Primrose Hill, London, NW1 8HX - Registered number 06552147.

Sitemap