Even Greece is showing the way with its current account surplus

I learnt earlier this week that Greece turned a current account surplus in 2013; the first time this happened since records began in 1948. If heavily indebted Greece can have a surplus, why can't the UK?

I'm pleased for Greece because they've shown the world community that they can repay their debts at some time in the future. They didn't know which area of the economy would give them an advantage. They do now - its the tourism industry. Obviously, Greece needs a broader contribution i.e. across all sectors of the economy. But they can build on this one.

Back home (UK), the Treasury has identified the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse:

1. Household debt
2. Commercial debt
3. National debt
4. Balance of Payments deficit

I've already given a possible solution to the above. The 4th item was caused by lower productivity which led to poorer exports which led the UK losing market share of the global economy and was made worse by increasing imports. The solution to the 4th item is obvious - take a leaf from Greece's book. Not that British tourism is going to ignite the economy; it's the fact that turning a current account surplus is possible no matter how indebted you are.

As for the other 3, they can only be alleviated by sustained strong economic growth and the proceeds of this growth need to be evenly distributed. Already some members of the press are saying that wage rises will grow faster than inflation. I should think so if industry and the people are going to pay down their debts. Wages have been declining in real terms for around 5 years; they need to grow above inflation for the next 5 years. However, we're talking about sustained growth; we can't afford to fuel another bubble i.e. industry and the people must pay down a substantial amount of their debts to manageable levels. The paying down of debts, including the National Debt, will take the heat off the economy so there will be little cause for concern over inflation - except maybe for external factors.

Next month is budget month. Until then...

The BoE agrees with my 3% target for 2014

Today I read The Times and I came across an article about the Bank of England (BoE) predicting 2014 growth of 3.4%. So what's all the fuss about a target of 3%? Industry experts say it's wildly optimistic and unrealistic. Typical of the British to think like that, it's no wonder their estimates are always wrong. Not only that, but when they're estimating calamities, they go over the top; and when they estimate good news, they underestimate. I suppose they're erring on the side of caution.

When you exaggerate a negative indicator, you lower people's expectations or even worry them unnecessarily thus achieving the negative scenario. Similarly, when you understate a positive indicator, you also lower people's expectations and achieve mediocre results.

What Britain needs is a strong leader with positive aims and aspirations for the British people. Someone who can not only inspire the people but fire them up to achieve greater goals. Being a visionary is one thing; telling the people how to achieve the vision is another. At least give the people an outline and fill it in as time goes by. The methodical way it's done should identify you as a visionary but getting it right or at least approximately right will identify you as a leader.

So is Mark Carney, BoE Governor, a leader for the British people? Well he's a visionary for the time being. But by this time next year, we'll know if he has leadership qualities. People may forget about his replacing the forward guidance by a more comprehensive one. He published it in August 2013 after the very strong Q2 GDP figures and strong July employment figures. I bet he's still finding his feet as he's still new to the job.

It's nice to have supporters of this calibre. I only need members of the Government or its agencies to corroborate this optimistic view. In recent years the IMF and the OECD were pleased with our work which seems to be getting better. Will they wade in with optimistic figures? We need all the help we can get but not to lull ourselves into a false sense of security.

I don't mind calling myself a leader because I've got an illustrious track record to back me up - I've been keeping my head when everyone else were losing theirs. And my success goes a long way back. The one that I can remember clearly is steering the British Economy through a supposed recession in 1999/2000. But I couldn't have done it without the cooperation of the Government and Industry.

Till next time, stay optimistic.

Invoice Clearing House (ICH)

In December 2013, I came across an article telling us about the 100th Anniversary of the Federal Reserve of America. The point about it that interested me was that it started as a simple "Clearing House" for banks and increased in importance and functionality until it became the most powerful organisation in the world.

This gave me an idea how to help cash-strapped businesses particularly small and medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The idea was to set up a government sponsored "Invoice Clearing House" where SMEs can sell their invoices to the clearing house for a fee and get 90% of the total amount of their invoices and get the rest minus the fee later when the invoices are finally paid.

For Example, suppose we have 4 companies:

1. company A is the raw material supplier whose costs are £1000 and profit is £1000. He sells them to B for £2000.
2. company B is the manufacturer who spends £1000 shaping the raw materials into the finished product and wants £1000 profit. He sells them to C for £4000.
3. company C is the Distributor who simply distributes them to D for £1000 profit i.e. he sells them for £5000.
4. company D is the retailer who sells them to the consumer for £6000 i.e. £1000 profit.

Now company A can get £1800 straight away from the ICH using a service similar to factoring or invoice discounting without the complexities or stringent rules that exclude too many SMEs. Because the ICH has already paid £1800 to A, they only pay B £1800 i.e. 90% of the £1000 cost and £1000 profit. C only gets £900 i.e. 90% of the £1000 profit. This means that the ICH would've paid the companies £4500 in advance and owes them £500 minus fees.

When the retailer D sells the final product to the consumer for £6000, he retains his profit of £1000 and pays the ICH the remaining £5000. The ICH then keeps the £4500 and redistributes the £500 less the fees. Suppose the fees were 3% of £4500 = £135 leaving £365 to be redistributed on a pro-rata basis i.e. £146 + £146 + £73.

With the Invoice Clearing House being in Government hands, they'll keep an eye on what's going on in industry who have been trusted for too long and who didn't return that trust. But the important thing about this is that it keeps the money running smoothly in the economy i.e. it increases liquidity where it matters most unlike Quantitative Easing which provides liquidity to pay for the gambling debts of the people who caused the problem in the first place.

Today, 12/02/14, I read a blog in the smallbusiness.co.uk website which was published 3 weeks ago on 22/01/14:

"The government is, perhaps, best placed to dramatically alter the landscape and help change this mindset. By establishing a funding ‘clearing house’, possibly using the interface of the much-promoted and soon-to-be-launched business bank, the government can signpost suitable alternative lenders which, in turn would generate positive pressure on the main banks to help find funding alternatives for businesses."

My only regret is that I didn't publish my idea before this blog appeared but I do have it handwritten before Christmas but it wasn't dated. At least I'm confident that the powers that be are taking my advice. I mean:

1.  I recall in 2009 advising the then Government to mount a mortgage rescue scheme. Then a couple of weeks later, I read an article where the Nationwide was rescuing its mortgagees using such a scheme. I remember thinking that it's being done anyway. I didn't stop to think that they may have been following my idea.
2. In 2009 I forecasted that the repossession rate would be 50K and set about achieving it - using the mortgage rescue schemes; advising County Court Judges not to entertain repossession petitions until such measures have been taken; and advising Employers that your employees are your best assets, don't lay them off willy nilly. These measures helped us achieve such a difficult target
3. This was repeated in 2010 where we reduced the already low number of repossessions even further to 36.4K
4. We failed to repeat this in 2011 because of the Austerity Measures and I had to concentrate on stabilising the economy. I advised the Chancellor to bring forward the 1% corporation tax cut from 2014 to 2011 because 2011 will bear the brunt of the Austerity Measures and by 2014 the economy will be on a firmer footing that it won't need one. Look at what's happening now in 2014. In the end, there were exactly 36K repossessions in 2011.
5. And now, the "Clearing House" idea. In fact I've alluded to this in 2010. You only need to read my past blogs to find a similar idea in all but name.
6. Incidentally, now that the reduction of repossessions has continued - it's forecast to fall below 30K in 2013 - the next target is 9K in 5 years and less than 1000 after that. Impossible? It will be if you keep thinking like that.

Today (12/02/14) I had two shocks: the fact that the Chancellor actually followed my advice i.e. he did reduce corporation tax by 2% in the March 2011 budget. And the Clearing House idea which I penned out only in December 2013.

These give me the impression that I'm in a position to influence the movers and shakers.

The question is, will we achieve a GDP target of 3% in 2014?

Update on 2011 Prediction

In Feb 2011, I suggested that the Chancellor, in his March budget, should bring forward the tax cut of 2014 to 2011 i.e. reduce Corporation Tax by 2% in 2011. This is because 2011 will bear the brunt of the Austerity Measures which are due to start from April; and we won't need a tax cut in 2014 as, by then, the economy would be on a firmer footing. I didn't follow the Budget and didn't find out what he actually did.

However, I googled "corporation tax cut 2011" and found one article on the BBC business news website:

"Corporation Tax will be reduced by 2% from April 2011, rather than 1% as previously intended, and fall by 1% in the next three years, to reach 23%".

Anothre feather in my cap - he actually followed advice and the economy is on a firmer footing well before 2014 i.e. industry won't miss any tax cuts. Besides they had it in 2011. Unfortunately, my celebrations were curtailed by the "Help to Buy" scheme as many economists believe it's the stimulus industry have been waiting for.

However, economic analysts are split into 2 camps: those who see it as a bubble that will burst when the Help to Buy scheme ends in Dec 2014; and those who see it as a sustained recovery since all sectors of the economy are recovering. Even the CBI waded in by saying that it's the right kind of recovery. The pessimists think that growth in 2015 would fall back to 1.9% when the Help to Buy scheme finishes. My view is that this is a real recovery and that I'm hoping for GDP growth of 3% in 2014 and 4% in 2015.

As usual, my predictions are being dismissed. Think about it, 1.9% isn't that far away from 3% and we've achieved a sustained 3% in the past and America has grown by 3.2% in 2013. Can't we repeat that in 2014?

Till the next time, have a nice recovery.

1.9% GDP and The Economic Fractionating Column

Sorry for the delay beause the GDP report came out on 28th January and it didn't leave me much time to respond. Alright, I forgot. What a result eh? GDP growth rate came out at the top of expectations i.e. 1.9%. Admittedly, the forecasts weren't mine but it's nice to know that others have joined me in this - it's a sign of trust.

I set a target of 3% for 2014 and 4% in 2015. At the time they sounded far fetched but now they're within reach. The American economy grew by 3.2% in 2013. We can duplicate that. In the past, I remember telling the Government of the day that whatever happpens in America, expect it to happen in the UK 6 months later. Now it's taking 12 months and people are still complaining. Could it be that the financial crisis hit the UK hardest or is it government policy? I believe it's a bit of both. Remember that the City of London was labelled as the financial capital of the world. So when the financial crisis hit, it was bound to affect the UK the worst.

I noticed that everytime there was a failure, the Chancellor would use the "structural imbalances"as an explanation for the failure. I got sick and tired of this and googled it and I was given two pdf reports published in May 2012 and May 2013 and they all said the same thing about the structural imbalances:

1. Household debt
2. Commercial debt
3. National Debt
4. Poor productivity, losing market share of the global economy, widening balance of payment deficits.

Item 4 is worrying in that Poor productivity leads to losing market share of the global economy which leads to widening current account deficits. But this can be alleviated by reducing imports which would have a knock on effect on growth. So, industry has to be weaned off imports albeit reduce depedence. Another way of tackling it is to improve exports. This can be done by improving productivity, quality, and after sales service. Not to mention a concerted effort to promote British goods and services overseas.

When I was in secondary school in the 1970s, our science teacher explained to us how crude oil is processed by petroleum companies. They use a fractionating column where crude oil is heated by a furnace at the bottom and the vapours rise to the top of the column. By allowing them to distill, the lightest gases are taken off the column at the top and the remaning ones allowed to settle in fractions with the lightest ones at the top and the heaviest ones at the bottom. Actually, the top few fractions are gases like propane, the middle ones are liquids like petrol (octane), and thebottom ones are solids like tar and bitumen.

My plan is that the structural imbalances should be placed in an economic fractionating column with industry as the furnace at the bottom which gives the people the chance to create wealth. This wealth would rise up the column and settle in fractions.

The first fraction is the household debt. This means that industry should create enough money so that the people can pay their way, save for a rainy day and have enough to pay down their household debt.

The second fraction is the Commercial debt. This means that indusry should create enough money to pay the people plus enough money so that businesses can pay their way, save for a rainy day i.e. the capital reserve, and have enough to pay down their commercial debt.

The third fraction is the National Debt. This means that indusry should create enough money to pay the people and the businesses plus enough money so that the people and businesses can pay enough taxes so that the govenment can pay their way and have enough to pay down the National Debt.

There would be no 4th fraction as improving productivity is a necessity for creating that value to pay all those debts as well as pay for our lifestyles. If the goods and services are produced to a high standard of quality, the exports should increase. In fact, the external factors describe above should be implemented to increase the chances of regaining our market share of the global economy and reduce those balance of payments deficits. The more money that stays in the UK the easier it gets to pay down our debts.

I can't give time-scales as the amount of value industry can produce is limited and it depends on the domestic and global demand for it. Although we can build capacity to meet the demand, this would put pressure on the natural resources and the pollution levels which may mean the UK breaching internationally-set pollution targets. These restrictions will mean a longer time-scale than normal.

The unknowns, as far as I can see, are:

1. domestic and global demand
2. internationally-set pollution targets
3. availability of natural resources
4. the rate at which we produce that value

It's easier for me to say than for you to do - that's why I like my advisory job.

So, we have encouraging growth rates but, as some economists have commented, wage growth is well below inflation which means that people's spending power is subdued and that cannot sustain the growth as the falling wages don't create enough demand let alone pay down any debts.

Look out for wage rises in the near future. If it doesn't happen, this growth would peter out and we'll be back to square one.

I just want to add one last comment about the repossession rate. The WPM has set a target of 9,000 within 5 years. So in January 2019 repossessions will be in single figure thousands. I had a heated argument about it being impossible. Then I reminded them that at the end of 2009 there were 46K repossessions and at the end of 2013 it's likely to be 29K that's a reduction of 17K in 4 years of recession.

All I'm asking is for a similar reduction of 20K in 5 years in a recovery and possibly strong growth if I have my way. Some people agreed with me and said why have repossessions at all. That means that when the 9,000 target is reached, our next target is <1000 - it's impossible to have zero repossessions.