Sunday, March 03, 2013

Fighting the Government for savers and against inflation (1)

I am going to return to the fight on National Savings Index-Linked Certificates. As background, I give below the text of some of the relevant emails between myself and my Member of Parliament, Mr John Hemming (Liberal Democrat member for Birmingham Yardley):
 
11 June 2012:
 
Dear Mr Hemming
 
As one of your constituents, I should be grateful if you would ask questions in Parliament re the Government's intentions in respect of preserving our life savings against the ravages of inflation. This is especially a matter of concern because of continuing enormous financial support for the banking system, here and in other countries (latterly Spain) that seems destined to burst out as high inflation at some future point.

I note that Mr Cameron's private secretary has written recently to all members of the Cabinet saying, among other things:
 
"The Prime Minister wants to ensure that the Government as a whole is giving the highest priority to addressing the cost of living."
 
 
If this is so, why did National Savings & Investments withdraw Index-Linked Savings Certificates from sale on 19 July 2010, when they had previously been continuously available since 1975, a year in which RPI was 24.2%? Is this an indication that the Government expects RPI to be even worse than that figure in the intermediate future?
 
And why were these Certificates, somewhat grudgingly reintroduced (5-year term only) on 12 May 2011, withdrawn again on 7 September? Why are they not available now?
 
It is also worrying that the Government's 2011 Budget Plan (as given in Red Book Annexe B, page 90 - http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/documents/digitalasset/dg_196165.pdf) says "National Savings and Investments (NS&I) is expected to make a contribution to net finance of £2 billion."
 
Is this a sign that the Government is purely concerned about targets for government borrowing and not at all exercised about the protection of HMG's subjects' money savings, which in many cases have been built up slowly and with difficulty over many years. Why should simple savers have to accept risks to the real value of their deferred spending, as though they were speculators?
 
Is the Prime Minister's leaked pronouncement a misleading dog-whistle to the electorate, or is he really willing to put our money where his mouth is?
 
Yours faithfully
 
Answer (same day):

I will write to the chancellor about this.

2 July 2012:

Dear Mr Hemming
May I ask whether the Chancellor has responded on this matter, and if not, when and in what terms did you write to him? Surely he cannot disregard the issue?
 
Answer (same day):
 
I will chase for a response.

22 July 2012:

Dear Mr Hemming
As you have now asked the Chancellor twice for a response on inflation-protected savings, without success, may I respectfully request that you table a Parliamentary question to be asked at the first available opportunity?
Yours faithfully
 
Answer (same day):

No problem. The first opportunity will be in September. I will ask my researcher to work on drafting that with you.

I was not contacted by Mr Hemming or his researcher re tabling a Parliamentary question. But Mr Hemming had wriiten on 2 July to the Chancellor, George Osborne, and on 4 August I received a copy of a letter (dated 25 July 2012) to Mr Hemming from the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Sassoon.

Cover letter from Mr Hemming to me (2 August 2012): (click to enlarge)

Main text of the above:
 
Re: JAMH21291 Protection of Savings
 
This is a short letter to confirm that we have received the enclosed response to the above enquiry from to the [sic] Her Majesty's Treasury.
 
The treasury has set out the reasons Savings Certificates were withdran from sale, owing, it seems, to them being over subscribed, and has set out other methods in which it is supporting savers.
 
It is also worth noting that the economic situation has improved, with Inflation currently running at 2.4%, much closer to target than a year ago.
 
I trust this information is useful to you, but if you have any further concerns please do not hesitate to contact me again.
 
Letter from Lord Sassoon to Mr John Hemming MP, 25 July 2012:
 
Main text of the above:
 
Dear Mr Hemming
 
Thank you for your letter of 2 July to George Osborne regarding correspondence from your constituent [...] about National Savings and Investments (NS&I). I am replying as Minister responsible for this policy area.
 
I appreciate that your constituent is concerned about savings in the current climate of relatively high inflation and low interest rates and is disappointed that Savings Certificates are no longer on sale. It is important, though, to recognise that inflation has come down from 5.2 per cent in September 2011 to 2.4 per cent in June 2012. The Government continues to give priority to reducing the impact of rising prices on families and businesses including through the recently announced deferral of fuel duty increases, which means that petrol prices will be 10p per litre lower than they would have been under the previous Government's plans.
 
NS&I provide cost-effective retail debt finance to Government. The money invested in their products contributes to the Government's overall debt financing remit. In doing this, NS&I follow a policy of balancing the interest of savers and the taxpayer with the stability of the financial services market. While doing so they aim to meet the financing objective set each year by HM Treasury.
 
It might be helpful if I explain the reasons why NS&I withdrew their Savings Certificates.
 
In July 2010, the popularity of both their index-linked and Fixed-interest Savings Certificates reached unprecedented levels and sales volumes far exceeded those either anticipated or required by NS&I to meet their financing target set by HM Treasury. Because of this, they took the difficult decision to take Certificates off sale on 18 July 2010. This change however did not affect existing customers.
 
The March 2011 budget confirmed NS&I's Net Financing target for 2011-12 as £2 billion with a range of £0-4 billion. To achieve this, they needed inflows of some £14 billion from sales and reinvestments during the year which gave them the ability to reintroduce one 5-year term of Savings Certificates on 12 May 2011. Their aim was to keep them on sale for a sustained period of time to enable as many savers as possible to invest.
 
As they expected, the Savings Certificates proved very popular and in just under four months they had received over 500,000 transactions. In order to stay within the Net Financing target range for the year, at this point they had to withdraw the certificates from sale.
 
Existing NS&I Savings Certificates customers can, on maturity, keep their investment for another term of the same length. Alternatively, they can reinvest into any of the other Savings Certificates terms and issues on offer to existing customers.
 
In more general terms, the Government wants a saving system based on freedom, fairness and responsibility, which is both affordable and effective.
 
To support and encourage savers the Government has:
 
  • ensured the amount that people can save tax-free is not eroded by inflation by indexing the amount that can be paid into ISAs each year. This means that the Government has increased ISA limits by £600 this year, including an extra £300 for cash ISAs;
  • announced at Budget 2012 that Government will work with industry to improve competitiveness and transparency in the ISA market, particularly by encouraging the industry to work towards faster ISA transfers;
  • introduced Junior ISAs, offering parent a clear, simple and tax-free way to save for their child's future;
  • confirmed that employees will have a new duty to automatically enrol qualifying employees into a pension scheme from October 2012. This has the potantial to encourage 5 to 8 million more people to start saving or save more into a workplace pension scheme. The Government is also establishing the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) to provide a low-cost, high-quality pension scheme for individuals not currently served by the market;
  • set up the Money Advice Service to offer free and impartial information and advice on all money matters available online at www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk , face-to-face, or by calling its helpline on 0300 500 5000. The Money Advice Service also launched a financial health check to help people proactively manage their money. It also publishes comparative tables of savings accounts and the interest rates offered; and
  • given individuals more choice over the use of their pension savings to provide a retirement income by removing the effective requirement to purchase an annuity by age 75.
 
Please pass on my thanks to Mr Norfolk for taking the trouble to make us aware of these concerns.
 
Yours sincerely
 
James Sassoon
 
LORD SASSOON
 
Email from me to Mr John Hemming MP, 05 August 2012:
 
 Dear Mr Hemming
 
Thank you for forwarding Lord Sassoon's letter, which arrived here yesterday. It is not at all up to the standard that I would expect from a Treasury mind; in fact, it is little short of a disgrace.
The first page confirms what I suspected, that the present Government is concerned only with its own funding needs and not at all with what should be its commitment to savers, not to say the currency (which according to the BoE's own website has lost 99% of its value since 1900). As you know, National Savings Index-Linked Certificates were introduced in 1975, a year in which RPI inflation was, as I said to you before, 24.2%. If the government of the day could bring in this product at such a time of crisis and galloping inflation, I cannot see any justification for the present hiatus.
The point about the present level of inflation is useless. Savers need to know for sure that their money retains its spending power over the chosen period, not to be informed from time to time that RPI may have temporarily dipped.
The second page slides further downhill into irrelevant party political nonsense. To be specific about its failures to address the subject, I will take each of Lord Sassoon's points in order:
  • The cash ISA limit has nothing whatever to do with maintaining the purchasing power of cash.
  • ISA transfers, ditto.
  • Junior ISAs, ditto.
  • The NEST pension scheme is not a savings vehicle but an investment vehicle, a distinction that surely cannot have escaped someone with Lord Sassoon's background in the financial services industry. The nearest to cash within pension funds is either money market funds (which have a big fat question mark over them at the moment, I can tell you as an IFA) or bank/building society cash funds that (a) usually offer a significantly lower rate than cash ISAs and (b) are (except perhaps for SIPPs) not covered by the FSCS in the way that individually held accounts are (see the Pensions Advisory Service's article here).
  • The Money Advice Service is also irrelevant to the purchasing power of cash savings.
  • Changes to the requirement to purchase an annuity at age 75, ditto.
Sir, you have established something of a reputation as an MP who is prepared to ask awkward questions in Parliament, irrespective of party political aspects. This question is inconvenient to the present administration, but crucial to the financial wellbeing of many people throughout the country. I do not think it is ethical for the government to take the view that the man in the street must be forced to accept investment risk, merely when he decides to set aside some money for tomorrow instead of spending it today. His prudence should not be seen as an opportunity to shear his fleece with inflation.
May I respectfully request that you take this further to PMQs or Questions to Ministers, and make a proper fuss?
Yours faithfully
 
Answer (same day):

Parliament is not sitting at the moment.

I will look at the letter later next week (I am at a funeral on Monday) and come back to you on this. The sovereign debt issue is a very serious issue, however

Email from me to Mr John Hemming MP, today (03 March 2013):

Dear Mr Hemming
Thank you for your reply to my previous email.
Now that:
  •  the British Government creditworthiness has been downgraded by Moody's,and
  • the pound has dropped, and
  • inflation looks set to rise further, especially for imports;
- may I ask you to pursue my query vigorously in Parliament?
May I also draw your attention to two passages in Hansard from 1975 that make it perfectly clear that Government recognises the moral obligation to protect the value of savers' money?
__________________________________________________

Does the Minister accept that the opportunity to invest in inflation-proof schemes is an act of belated social justice to millions of people who have seen their savings irreversibly damaged during the recent rapid rise in the rate of inflation? Will he make recompense to many of them by easing up on his vindictive attacks on the principle of savings embodied in the capital transfer tax and the wealth tax?

The hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question at the wrong time, because National Savings are rising very well at present. I am sure he will be delighted to hear that. As to what he called "belated social justice", I am sure he will pay due attention to the fact that the scheme was introduced by a Labour Government and not by a Conservative Government.
Is the Chief Secretary confident that a further extension of index-linked schemes—which are welcome to savers—will not cause a diversion of funds away from deposits with building societies, leading to a rise in the mortgage interest rate?
We are, indeed, aware of those problems. That is precisely why we introduced the scheme in this limited way.
Hansard record of House of Lords debate, 4 November 1975:

Lord LEE of NEWTON

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the index-linked schemes are extremely good value for money, it would be a good idea—as inflation has been rather rampant—to increase the maximum amount that can be invested in them?

My Lords, the Government have two conflicting obligations. One is an obligation to the taxpayer to buy goods and services as economically as possible, and secondly there are certain social obligations. The Government believe that by the action they have taken they have got the right balance.
________________________________________________
On 22 July last year, you offered to allow me to work with your researcher to draft a Parliamentary question on this subject. May I ask whether that offer is still open?
Yours sincerely

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Vigilantes in Iceland

Are the ancient ways coming back? Read Katharina Hauptmann's article on World Voices here.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

Iceland: Rise of the vigilantes


Over the past years I’ve come to notice a worrying trend here in Iceland. A trend that some people probably won’t dare to talk about publicly. I’m talking about vigilantism, something one certainly wouldn’t connect with Iceland.

On multiple occasions I’ve experienced that people here take the law into their own hands. It seems that many people don’t consider the measures or punishment executed by police and law as satisfactory.

And by vigilantism I’m talking about having certain people beaten up or threatened. If you piss off the wrong people, they will call somebody who will teach you a lesson.

I had one of my first experiences with this practice a few years ago, when my former boss and owner of the bar I worked at went bankrupt, cheated a lot of employees of their money and ended up owing a lot of people a lot of money. This shady guy “fell down the stairs.”

Another incident happened at another bar I used to work. Some drugged-up maniac went crazy attacking a few guests. So a few calls were made to ensure he wouldn’t ever come back. I can only imagine what that means.

And these cases are not exceptions.


If you become victim of any kind of injustice, it is not so difficult to find the culprit as Reykjavík (and anywhere else in Iceland) is a rather small and tight-knit community.

Somebody is harassing you, you call somebody to teach the thug a lesson. Somebody owes you money or stole your car? No matter if you need a debt paid or just revenge, all you need to do is make that call.

In public this vigilante practice is of course not accepted, but behind closed doors some people seek this form of extrajudicial punishment.

I argued about this with some Icelandic friends of mine as I am still shocked and appalled by this frontier justice every time I come across it. To me, taking the law into one’s own hands is just inappropriate, a relic of the Wild West, and I don’t find it acceptable for an advanced Western country like Iceland in the 21st century.

One should leave punishment up to the legal authorities.

My friends disagreed with me because the authorities never take the appropriate measures, according to them. “The police don’t do anything. They won’t help you” is an argument I’ve heard very often in the almost seven years that I’ve lived here.

It seems that many Icelanders don’t have any trust in their police or the legal system and therefore just “solve” their issues among themselves.

Granted, from my personal experience I can say that I do not have much faith in the Icelandic police either as they seem to be infuriatingly passive when it matters.

And talking about insufficient punishment—a few court decisions of late have caused public outcry such as the more than pathetic verdict by the Supreme Court in a case of sexual assault. Reading
this article by Iceland Review guest contributor Herdís Helga Schopka shows perfectly why people feel let down by the legal system and why they feel like they need to take matters into their own hands.

I can really understand the wish for revenge (as petty as it may be) and the need for real justice.

But hiring a bunch of thugs to physically hurt somebody else cannot be the answer. I mean, this is Iceland (Iceland, the world’s most peaceful country with a very low crime rate) in 2013, for crying out loud, not some mafia infested, gun-slinging place.


I guess those vigilante methods are an inheritance of the Icelandic Viking ancestors.

Does the end justify the means?

By Katharina Hauptmann. This article first appeared in Icelandic Review here (htp: Nourishing Obscurity).

Reproduced with the kind permission of the author. All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy.

Nick Drew: Could our lights go out?

Read the first of Nick's superb new series on threats to our energy supply here.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Nick Drew: Could our lights go out?

Read the first of Nick's superb new series on threats to our energy supply here.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Securing Energy Supply (1)

When it comes to energy policy-making in the 21st Century, for most developed economies it is built around a 'triad' comprising these elements:
  • environmental - reducing the detrimental impact of obtaining usable energy
  • economic - delivering 'affordable' energy
  • security of supply - delivering energy reliably
To state them as briefly as this is to skate lightly over huge complexities, but let us accept that we broadly know what is intended.

Attempts are constantly made to reconcile the three strands, since it is hard to see they can all be delivered at the same time - an issue sometimes referred to as the 'Energy Trilemma'.  We can have cheap, secure energy, but living near a 1970's vintage lignite-fuelled power station degrades and shortens your life.  We can have secure, low-carbon energy, but at tremendous cost.  We can have cheap, low-carbon energy but it may very well not be there when we need it.  The EU's official energy policy claims to square the circle (if a triad can do such a thing) - "fully balanced, integrated and mutually reinforced", claims the EC: but its reasoning is akin to that of the medieval schoolmen and the results not convincing at all.

(Charmingly, they have official nicknames for each leg of the policy triad - see the diagram: the environmental is called 'Kyoto' for obvious reasons; the economic is tagged 'Lisbon', after the conference and treaty of the same name that were intended to deliver competitiveness to the EU in every sphere; and the security moniker is 'Moscow' ... I wonder why ...)

Source:  European Commission
In this and following posts we focus on security, and consider mainly gas and electricity with some comments on oil.  There are two primary aspects: strategic security, against politically-motivated shortages; and day-to-day reliability.

Reliability was until recently not a matter that greatly exercised policy-makers in advanced economies.  Indeed, the enormous fundamental difficulties of continuously (and safely) supplying electricity, gas and oil had been so comprehensively solved, many had forgotten what an achievement it was.  Permanent access on demand to these three commodities - electricity in particular - has become essential to everyday existence, to the point where we cannot really countenance its interruption beyond the shortest of periods.

And permanent access is what we had become accustomed to, often forgetting that continuous supply of a commodity that is subject to all manner of complex contingencies, is a major practical challenge.  This challenge becomes all the greater when the commodity cannot readily be stored.  Compared to the relatively straightforward storage of (e.g.) coal or oil, the difficulty of storing natural gas is great; and of storing electricity very great indeed, almost to the point where we might say it cannot be stored (except in trivial quantities) unless one has access to large-scale hydro-electricity with pumped-water reservoirs - a privilege enjoyed by rather few of world's population.  But the engineers and markets are equal to the task, and the lights stay on.

If these problems have been so impressively solved, how then do we come to talk of reliability in the past tense ?  The new factor is wind-generated power, imposed on electricity systems by politicians responding (as they would see it) to lobbying by 'greens' for 'decarbonisation' of electricity in general, and by turbine manufacturers for wind turbines in particular.  We can fairly say 'imposed' because in almost every instance wind turbines cannot be justified economically per se (without recourse to a highly disputable case based on 'future avoided costs of CO2 emissions'), and thus only exist when installed by fiat and/or developers in receipt of large subsidies.

The characteristic feature of wind-power is 'intermittency', illustrated by the dismal long-term average output from windfarms which in most installations struggles to achieve 25% of its rated (notional) capacity.  If this 25% came in a predictable pattern - as, for example, does the equally low-performing solar power, which always peaks at midday - it could be accommodated fairly readily in a large electricity system.  However, in practice the pattern is near-random, with forward predictability of a few hours at best.

Yet electricity systems must be balanced continuously, and intermittent input in more than de minimis quantities is a challenge, growing ever greater as the amount of wind-power to be accommodated expands.  We considered the consequences of this in the two specific cases of Denmark and Germany in an earlier series of posts.  Summarising: through a combination of good engineering, access to hydro-electricity (in the case of Denmark), and throwing large amounts of money at the problem, to date these two countries have succeeded in accommodating large wind-generation sectors - but, in the case of Germany, only just.  Indeed, it is possible that Germany may be about to demonstrate dramatically the boundaries of what is feasible as regards wind-power: and it will be at levels of wind capacity a lot lower than many greens have hoped and promoted.

In any country or grid-region which must accommodate wind-power without having ready access to hydro, this serious challenge to reliability will persist until cheap and efficient power storage becomes a reality.  Such storage is as eagerly sought as any Holy Grail, but as yet is beyond us.  Thus, as the wind fetish shows little sign of abating in the corridors of power, reliability will become an ever-greater problem in electricity supply.  In some regional systems this might have knock-on consequences for gas reliability, if gas-fired power plant is called upon to meet ever more extreme wind-driven electricity-system balancing duties; but, by and large, gas grid operators (having at least some storage capability) have proven a match for this challenge and as yet, fears over gas security predominantly stem from strategic considerations.

It is to the strategic issues of energy security threatened by political factors that we turn next. 

[Continue to Part 2]

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Carbon Balls: don't pick on us for CO2 targets!

See the Energy Page for why the UK shouldn't lead the way in CO2 emissions reduction.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.