Further thoughts on the EU referendum result 

The problem is not our relationship with the European Union. That can be resolved in the coming years and, who knows, might turn into something more functional than the incoherent muddle it has become in the wake of the euro crisis. 

The real problem today are the shockwaves generated by the referendum result, which go much further – to the very fabric of what has cemented Britain’s place as one of the world’s leading economies. Think about it: what are the key factors that have made the UK a good economic bet in the past – for investors, for employees, for businesses looking to establish themselves somewhere prosperous?

It has chiefly come down to five things: 1. A stable political system; 2. A stable, predictable and reliable legal system; 3. London’s status as a global financial centre; 4. The UK’s reliability as a creditor and 5. The UK’s openness to trade, capital and migration flows. 

The reason markets and investors are quite so disturbed about the EU referendum result is that it puts every single one of these five pillars under question. 

1. The political establishment is now in ruins. The Prime Minister has resigned; much of the cabinet will doubtless follow. 2. The legal system is likely to change wholesale, given it is, for better or marked with EU laws and regulations. 3. Investment banks may well resettle away from the City of London if the UK is no longer a member of the passporting system (basically the single European market in key corporate finance services). 4. The public finances are likely to be thrown into disarray by the short and long term fiscal consequences of the post-referendum downturn; and for the time being there is no clarity on who will preside over those finances in the future. The credit rating is likely to be cut. 5. Finally, while it is possible that an independent non-EU UK could remain open to trade and immigration, those are not the kinds of mood messages transmitted by the a Leave camp during the campaign. 

Now, at this stage it’s worth emphasising that there is no God-given reason why a sensible administration could not surmount all the above issues. But it will take an almost superhuman effort in policy making and financial and legal diplomacy. 

Last night the pound fell by more than it has done in any trading period on record. Consider that for a moment: more than on Black Wednesday, more than during the financial crisis, more than in the 1970s, when Britain had to call in the International Monetary Fund. That is not an academic detail, it will affect everyone. Inflation will go up; Petrol prices will go up; many businesses trading overseas will struggle. It is hard not to presume that there will be a recession, as there has been every other time the pound fell anything like as suddenly and dramatically. The only question is how deep. 

Then there’s a deeper issue. Like most developed nations, the UK has many internal divisions – divisions between the wealthy and the less well-off, between the capital and the rural areas, between each of its regions. While we often make much of those divisions, they are no more entrenched than in many other countries. But, thanks in large part to the electoral system, they are rarely exposed in as brutal a way as they were last night. Every region of England, save for London, voted to leave. Wales voted to leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. Never has the UK looked so divided. 

Whoever takes over at Number 10 faces the greatest challenge of any British Prime Minister in decades 

What the…

Here are some initial stream-of-consciousness thoughts. Apologies if they’re a bit incoherent. 

This much we know: today is already one of the most extraordinary and volatile days in UK economic history.

For the time being, leave aside, if you can, all your questions about the future of the United Kingdom, about the fate of the government, even about whether Britain will be better off outside the European Union. That can wait for at least a few hours.

What can’t is this: overnight, Britain has swung from what economists would call a stable equilibrium to something resembling chaos. And investors are truly terrified.

In the early hours, the pound lurched about more than any other day in modern history. More than on Black Wednesday, the day still cited as the most tumultuous moment in modern British economic policymaking. More than after Lehman Brothers collapsed or at any point in the financial crisis. Broadly speaking, a 1% intraday move in a major reserve currency is considered pretty big. A 10% move (as we have just seen) is, literally, unprecedented.

Now, on the one hand you might be tempted to dismiss this as yet more scaremongering and nonsense. Not so fast. Many of us were sceptical about the Treasury’s forecasts for the UK economy in the event of Brexit. But we also saw worrying signals in the market – that while in the long run Brexit might be an economic opportunity for the UK, in the short run it could spark volatility and capital flight. A few weeks ago we revealed that investors sold off £65bn of sterling assets in the first couple of months of the referendum campaign. It turns out that was only an early tremor of what we are seeing today.

The exchange rate is a useful barometer of a country’s economic prosperity because it reflects the flow of cash into and out of a country. It reflects whether people are buying or selling UK sterling assets. And the scale of the fall in sterling suggests a full-blown firesale. This morning, every single sterling UK asset is worth 10% less, measured in dollars, and 6% less, measured in euros, than it was last night.

Now, you might argue that the pound needs to be lower in the long-run, which it probably does. We have a record current account deficit and a worryingly imbalanced economy. The worry is that the scale and speed of the fall smacks of capital flight.

That traders were taken completely by surprise by the result of the EU referendum is hardly big news – many in the Leave camp thought they were heading for a resounding loss when the polls closed. But it underlines that today is likely to be a bloody day in markets. The Bank of England is likely to step in soon – perhaps to inject liquidity into the markets, perhaps even to cut interest rates.

In the short run, it is in both sides’ interests to ensure markets can regain some stability. The problem is that markets are unstable because the sheer range of possible economic outcomes in the coming years is enormous. Does the UK lift its drawbridge, cease immigration and face WTO-sized tariffs on all its trade? Does it stay in the European Economic Area, like Norway, even though that is effectively EU membership in all but name?

Most economists think the gap in future prosperity between these two paths is far greater than between being inside the EU and out.

And that is before we get onto the questions about who will be Prime Minister, who will be Chancellor, and will the UK exist in its current state in a few years’ time?

In other words, markets may remain unstable and unsteady for some time, until at least some of these big unknowns are resolved. And the longer that instability lasts, the greater the chance that Brexit spawns its own global financial crisis – a newly- independent Britain’s first export to the wider world. 

The new new normal

It says something about the state of the world economy that as of the latest data Britain was the G7’s fastest growing economy in the final quarter of 2016. With growth of only 0.5%.

And yet that is the world we now seem to be living in. One where growth is weak, where inflation is at zero or thereabouts and where no one is sure what to do about it.

Today’s GDP figures were unchanged from the first estimate, and for that matter unchanged from the last quarter. This was actually a bit more encouraging than you might have thought. A lot of the data from the manufacturing and construction sectors was suggesting that there might have been a cut to the headline figure.

However, a dive into the figures themselves underlines what’s going on here. In short: unbalancing, the opposite of the rebalancing George Osborne has frequently called for. As you can see from the chart below, while the services sector has grown relatively quickly since the crisis, the same could not be said for the other sectors of the economy.


Of course, there are a number of different ways of measuring economic growth. One is to look through the prism of businesses (the breakdown you can see in that chart above). Another is to look at the nature of spending in the economy. After all, national income is simply a calculation of how much we are spending and earning each year – the two should be the same since one man’s spending is another’s earning.

Here’s how the economy looks through the expenditure prism:


Note that in every recent quarter households are responsible for the large part of growth. Again, not the net exports that the Chancellor had hoped would increase.

Now, to some extent none of this is surprising, nor is it disproportionately worrying. Services account for 80% of UK growth. You would have expected them to remain the key contributor of economic activity. Similarly, household spending has long been the biggest driver of overall expenditure. But the fact is that the divide between them and other sectors of the economy is widening, not narrowing.

 Still, the good news is that at least GDP per capita is comfortably above its pre-crisis peak.
The problem is that the underlying imbalances and weaknesses of the economy have not been fixed. And, as I pointed out at the start, we are now in a world which looks more brittle than it has done for some time.

The most unaffordable property in Britain

There is no such thing as a perfect measure of housing affordability – after all no two homebuyers are the same. Some will be taking out enormous mortgages to part-finance their dream  home. Others will be lucky enough to pay in cash. Some are buying as investment, others to live in the home.

However, perhaps the most broadly used measure is what’s known as the house price-earnings ratio. Very simply, you divide the average house price by the average earnings, and thereby learn how many years of a particular salary you’d need to buy a given home. While this doesn’t take account of the effects of interest rates, it at least gives you a yardstick against which to judge the expense or otherwise of a home.

It’s this metric that Mark Carney referred to this week when he told the Treasury Select Committee that although there were parts of the housing market that were picking up, across the country affordability levels remained relatively close to the levels in the early part of the economic crisis. The Bank of England Governor is right about the national picture – across England and Wales the average house price is now worth around six times the average salary. That’s down from the levels of 7-plus it hit before the crisis in 2008.

However, this overall figure masks an enormous range of differences throughout the country. We’ve done some analysis on this today, and the findings are quite astounding. First, a quick explanation of how we arrived at these numbers: we compared the average house price in certain regions of England & Wales (the Land Registry figures on different districts don’t extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland unfortunately) to the average salary of people living in that specific region. That final distinction is important: house prices in London are higher than elsewhere in the country, but then so are salaries. You only get a decent sense of the comparative expense of a home by comparing those who actually live in the area.

So, for instance, the median salary in Kensington & Chelsea was £41,315 at the midway point of this year. The average house price at that same point was £1. 19m. That equates to a price-earnings ratio of 28.9 times. To put this in context, the ratio in the borough has never been this high. The highest it reached before the crisis was 15 times; it has kept rising ever since. As you can see from the table below, it’s a similar story throughout London.

But although the figures are most eye-watering in London, this is not merely a phenomenon isolated to the capital. Prices in South Bucks and the Mole Valley (home to Leatherhead) are well over 11 times the average salaries locally. Prices in Ryedale in North Yorkshire are almost ten times local salaries. Throughout Britain (particularly, and perhaps predictably, in the commuter belt around London, and in towns where there are plenty of second homes) there are pockets where prices are well in excess of local salaries.

But elsewhere in England and Wales, prices are at far more affordable levels, with many regions of Wales and the North East having affordability ratios closer to three times – what would normally be regarded as a reasonably affordable level.

Now, to some extent, this disparity has always existed. House prices in certain smart parts of London have always been more expensive – even in comparison to local earnings – than in other parts of Britain. The point, however, is that the gulf has, suddenly, yawned wider to an alarming degree over the past few years. Looking at the way the house-price earnings ratio evolved over recent years in various parts of London, you’d struggle to spot the housing crash, for a simple reason: it never really happened in, prime London at least. As the markets slumped in 2008 and investors from around the world looked for alternative assets to buy (eg not bank shares), they discovered London property. Global quantitative easing, and the 25% depreciation of the pound, only made the play that much more attractive. In short, London property has become an asset class for global investors – in much the same mould as gold or bonds.

The problem is that at these kinds of levels it is becoming nigh-on impossible even for those who live within certain areas to afford the high prices of property. The upshot is that many will have to move elsewhere in order to find somewhere more affordable. Again, that’s not a new phenomenon, but the scale of the unaffordability in certain regions most certainly is.

It all raises the question, once again, of the wisdom of the particular formulation of the Chancellor’s new Help to Buy scheme. The policy will part-fund buyers’ deposits up to a purchase price of £600,000. This extremely generous ceiling implies that the scheme will be available for buyers within London, as well as outside. Quite why the Government should be subsidising a market which is already, in places, the most expensive in history (and by some yardsticks the most expensive in the world),  is unclear.

You can read a news story and see a video report on this subject here.

The most expensive regions    

Region                                  House price/earnings ratio

Kensington & Chelsea – 28.9

Westminster – 19

Camden – 18.3

Hammersmith & Fulham – 17.5

Hackney – 15.1

 

The least expensive regions

Region                         House price/earnings ratio

Blaenau Gwent – 2.2

Hartlepool – 2.8

Merthyr Tydfil – 2.8

Kingston-upon-Hull – 2.9

Rhondda, Cynon, Taff – 2.9

Can Osborne find the feelgood factor?

Here’s something to dwell on: back in 2010, at the time of George Osborne’s first Budget, the Government was predicting that by this stage, midway through 2013, the economy would be almost 3% bigger than it was at the start of the economic crisis.

Instead, today Britain’s economy is still over 3 percentage points smaller than it was before the crisis. If you compare the shortfall to trend growth (in other words what Britons should have been earning were it not for the crisis at all) the gulf is almost 20%.

graphico

The statistics help explain why now even the Chancellor is referring to what’s happened over the past few years as “The Great Recession”. All that lost output means that Britain is considerably poorer than it was even a few years ago – after all, remember that GDP is merely a measure of the total amount everyone in the country is earning. This is important: it means that although Britain may well be “turning the corner”, as George Osborne said today, it may take some time before the feelgood factor returns.

It’s worth remembering this when considering the Chancellor’s economic strategy. For the first time in years, the economy seems to be showing some genuine signs of growth. The purchasing managers’ indices suggest economic output is running at the strongest rate since the late 1990s. All being well, that should equate to very punchy growth in the GDP figures when the Office for National Statistics publishes them. Moreover, unemployment looks like it may be on the way down.

This is all good news: however, none of the above is likely to put much of a smile on peoples’ faces. It will not make Britons feel richer – particularly when you consider that real incomes are currently at around the same level they were back in 2003.

That, I suspect is one of the reasons why the Chancellor remains very wary of declaring the end of the misery. “Turning the corner”, as Mr Osborne called it today, is very different to the full, lusty “green shoots” of recovery Norman Lamont talked about in the early ‘90s.

However, there is one way a Chancellor can give people the impression of being wealthy – even when they remain poorer than they were some years ago. You boost house prices. It is hard to escape the conclusion that that is the objective of the Chancellor’s Help to Buy scheme.

It is an economic illusion, of course: you can’t realise the extra value of your home unless you downsize or move to another country. But higher home prices might at least detract from the fact that actual real incomes are still so much lower than they were before the crisis.

There may not have been any new economic policy in today’s speech, but it is nonetheless an important one. From hereon his language will be the language of recovery. The question that still remains is whether he can generate a recovery that has a feelgood factor about it.