Tuesday 16 December 2014

The bear in crisis: Russia's rouble plunges another 10% despite dramatic rate hike aimed at saving stricken economy

 
Russia's rouble plunged more than 10 per cent today as confidence in the nation's central bank shattered following an ineffectual overnight rate hike from 10.5 to 17 per cent. 
 
Battered by stringent European Union and United States sanctions imposed following the conflict in Ukraine and tumbling oil prices, the rouble's value has dropped by nearly 50 per cent since January.
 
The sudden depreciation is the most drastic since the Russian financial crisis in 1998 and is pushing inflation to worrying new heights.
 
In a desperate bid to prevent the collapse of the currency and boost its economy, Russia hiked its benchmark rate last night to 17 per cent.

As a result, the rouble opened this morning approximately 10 per cent stronger against the dollar - but it soon fell to new record lows, pushing losses this year against the dollar to more than 50 per cent.
 
Russia's currency was last down over 11 per cent at 73 to the dollar after falling past 74 roubles per dollar for the first time. It was more than 15 per cent weaker against the euro at 92.99.

At one point, Russia's dollar-demoninated RTS share index fell nearly 15 per cent, as Russian sovereign dollar bonds fell and money market rates jumped. President Putin has blamed both the slide in oil and the rouble on the West and speculators. 
 
The rouble's fall also reflects falling confidence in the central bank, whose governor Elvira Nabiullina now appears powerless to stop the currency's slide.
 
So far this year, the central bank has spent over $80billion defending the rouble, including more than $8billion since it floated the rouble last month. Russia's reserves are currently in the range of $416billion. 
 
Tumbling oil prices and Western sanctions imposed on Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis have been key forces behind the rouble's demise. 
 
The price of Brent crude oil fell by more than a dollar on Monday to below $60 for the first time since July 2009. This is likely to have an impact on Russia's oil-dependent economy, which the central bank says will probably contract early next year.  Russian authorities had been banking on oil prices of $100 per barrel in 2015, but are now forecasting a recession if prices remain at current levels.
 
The sanction effect 
EU and US sanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine means Russian banks and financial institutions are currently frozen out of western capital markets. 
 
One of the sanctions imposed prevents EU nationals and companies from providing loans to five major Russian state-owned banks. Another prohibits services - like brokering - related to the issuing of certain financial instruments.
 
The sanctions have also had an impact on firms with operations and employees in Russia. Some global law-firms for example have suffered significant headcount drops as Russian-based banking work continues to dry up.
 
Even Downing Street has waded into the issue, saying that international sanctions against Russia over its destabilisation of Ukraine have left it more vulnerable to economic shocks such as the current slump in oil prices.
 
The ongoing sanctions will be discussed by EU leaders including David Cameron at a summit of the European Council in Brussels on Thursday.
 
Asked for David Cameron's assessment of the situation in Russia, his spokesman said: 'What he would say is that it is not unreasonable to look at this in terms of the fact that Russia has made itself more vulnerable to economic shocks that major oil producers may face as a result of the fluctuations in the oil price, as a result of the relative isolation through sanctions that it has faced due to events in Ukraine'.

David Cameron's spokesman rejected any suggestion that the sanctions could be scaled back in response to Russia's economic woes. The spokesman told reporters: 'That requires de-escalation in the Ukraine.
 
'We have been clear that if Russia continues not to take the path of de-escalation, it will continue to face consequences. These have primarily been through sanctions, which have had an economic focus'. 
 
 

 
 

Tuesday 5 August 2014

Uber is 'excessively bumptious', according to Boris


London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, has criticised San-Francisco based transport network company, Uber, for being 'excessively bumptious'. On LBC radio today, the Mayor stated that he disliked the manner in which Uber is ‘moving into London and claiming they could take all the business away from black cabs’. According to the Mayor, the main problem with Uber is that it is ‘using mobile phones as what is effectively a taxi metre’.

The Mayor's comments came as he answered a question regarding a letter sent to him on 4 August by Barking and Dagenham MP, Margaret Hodge, alleging that Uber is 'competing unfairly' with London's black cabs. In the letter, Ms Hodge wrote, 'I am particularly concerned about the tax structure that Uber and others have apparently constructed, and the impact this has both on the public purse and on the livelihoods of London cabbies and private hire drivers'.

In response to the listener's query, the Mayor said that he believed Uber had satisfactorily dealt with issues surrounding their tax status, saying, 'as far as I know they've sorted that out'. However, Mr Johnson added, 'If I may say respectfully...and to all the taxi drivers who rage against Uber, you have my sympathy, but in the end there has been no more brilliant advocate of the services of Uber, no more powerful advertisers of that particular brand than the black cab trade'.

Uber is one of a number of apps people can use to book and pay for taxi journeys. Launched in 2009 and currently in operation in more than 70 cities, the app 'seamlessly' connects riders to drivers, according to the company's website.

Protests against Uber have taken place in cities across Europe, including in Paris this January and London in June. Following the London protest, Uber reported a colossal 850% rise in the number of people who had downloaded the company's app compared to the previous week.




Monday 28 July 2014

Court orders Russia to pay $50 billion to Yukos shareholders


The Hague’s Court of Arbitration (the ‘Court’) has ruled that Russia must pay former shareholders of the now defunct Russian oil company, Yukos, $50 billion (£25.9 billion). The $50 billion award is the largest ever handed down by any arbitration court.

The Court found that Russian officials, under Vladimir Putin, had manipulated the legal system in order to force Yukos into bankruptcy and imprison its boss, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Created by the Russian Federation in 1993 as part of a large-scale re-organization of the Soviet oil production and processing industry, Yukos was once one of the largest and most successful oil companies in the world. In May 2002, Yukos was the only Russian company to be ranked among the top 10 largest oil and gas companies by market capitalisation worldwide.

In 2003, however, Russian authorities began the process of breaking up and selling off Yukos.On 11 July 2003, the first of a series of large-scale raids was carried out by Russian authorities on Yukos. Bruce Misamore, Yukos’ then Chief Financial Officer, described the raid as ‘an incredible scene full of armed, masked officers – during which they trawled through our computer records for approximately 17 hours. This was to begin a wave of raids on Yukos’ Moscow headquarters…by investigative officers…sometimes accompanied by heavily armed police officers’.

Subsequently, on 25 July 2003, Mr Khodorkovsky, Yukos’ owner and Russia’s richest man at the time, was arrested at gunpoint by an armed special forces unit in a Siberian airport, and was taken to Moscow where he was charged and sentenced for a number of economic crimes, including fraud, tax evasion and embezzlement. President Putin justified the move by saying, ‘A thief must be in jail’.

In December 2003, following a tax re-audit conducted by Russian tax authorities, Yukos was issued with tax claims that exceeded its revenues for 2002 and 2003. At the same time that tax re-assessments were being filed against Yukos and its subsidiaries, Russian authorities also began freezing shares and other assets belonging to Yukos and related entities. 

Eventually, in March 2006 bankruptcy proceedings were commenced against Yukos, placing it under external supervision, and on 4 August 2006, the company was declared bankrupt. 

After being imprisoned for 10 years, Mr Khodorkovsky received a pardon from President Putin and was released from jail on 20 December 2013. Responding to the Court’s final award, Mr Khordorkovsky said it was ‘fantastic’ that shareholders were ‘being given [the] chance to recover assets’.

The arbitral dispute between former Yukos shareholders and Russian authorities has rumbled on for over a decade, but the Court’s ruling appears unlikely to mark the end of the matter. Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has suggested that Russia could appeal against the decision. Mr Lavrov said, ‘The Russian side, those agencies which represent Russia in this process, will no doubt use all available legal possibilities to defend its position’.

However, one of Yukos’ lawyers, Professor Emmanuel Gaillard, said there would be no opportunity for Russia to contest the decision. Professor Gaillard stated, ‘As to appeal, there is no appeal…The tribunal has listened to both parties…the Russian Federation had ample opportunity to be heard in this case, the judgement is there. After 10 years of battle, the tribunal says they violated international law’.

The compensation awarded to Yukos' former shareholders is half of the original $103 billion claim by subsidiaries of Gibraltar-based Group Menatep, which previously controlled Yukos. Group Menatep now exists as holding company, GML. GML director, Tim Osborne, said, 'We couldn't be happier with this result'. 

Russia, which potentially faces tough new economic sanctions from Europe following the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, has until January 2015 to pay the compensation and will be charged interest on any late payments. 

Wednesday 23 July 2014

RBS accused of being ‘wilfully obtuse’


Conservative MP, Andrew Tyrie, has criticised state-backed bank RBS for giving 'wilfully obtuse' evidence to the Treasury Select Committee earlier this year. The Treasury Select Committee is investigating whether RBS' corporate turnaround division, the Global Restructuring Group ('GRG'), put viable businesses into default in order to boost profits.

In June 2014, Chris Sullivan, deputy chief executive of RBS, and Derek Sach, head of the bank's GRG, denied claims made in a report (the 'RBS Independent Lending Review', 25 November 2013) by former deputy Bank of England governor, Sir Andrew Large, that GRG is a 'profit centre'. Sullivan repeatedly told the Treasury Select Committee in June that the description of GRG as a 'profit centre' was 'totally inappropriate'.

Now, however, in a letter to Tyrie dated 14 July 2014, Sullivan concedes that GRG is a profit centre, but says that in the June 2014 session, he was actually taking issue with the way some had used the term to suggest that GRG 'had a profit motive with a prejudice against our customers'. Sullivan also wrote, 'I need to correct the statement I made to the committee that I did not see a draft of the report, as on further checking with my office I can confirm I was in receipt of a copy during this period and made some comments of a typographical nature'. 

In response to the letter form Sullivan, Tyrie has said that he is going to write to RBS chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, to complain about the evidence given by Sullivan and Sach in June. The Treasury Select Committee will also write a report on its findings this summer. In a statement, Tyrie said that Sullivan's letter represented 'a belated U-turn. It's not as if the facts have changed'. Tyrie continued, 'If this is how RBS deals with a parliamentary Committee, how much can customers and regulators rely on it to be straightforward with them?'. 

RBS' Global Restructuring Group unit manages global corporate clients who find themselves in financial distress and have missed or are in danger of missing debt repayments. It is meant to work with companies to help them return to financial health.  

Friday 4 July 2014

Amazon's corporate tax affairs in Luxembourg come under EU scrutiny


According to a report by the Financial Times published yesterday, the EU’s Competition Commission has asked Luxembourg to hand over documents relating to US online retailer Amazon’s corporate tax affairs in the country. The request for information will establish whether or not the company’s tax affairs through Luxembourg comply with applicable state aid regulations. The outcome of the fact-finding mission could ultimately lead to a full investigation being carried out.

An EU official told the Financial Times that, ‘We are looking into what kind of arrangement Luxembourg has with Amazon’. If the Competition Commission unearths evidence of unlawful operations between Luxembourg and Amazon, it will have the discretion to order the repayment of all tax revenues that have been lost as a result of the arrangement.

Within the UK, Amazon faced a torrent of criticism earlier this year when accounts revealed that in 2013 the company paid just £4.2 million in tax to the UK Treasury, despite achieving record sales of £4.3 billion.  At the time, a representative from Amazon stated, ‘The company pays all applicable taxes in every jurisdiction that it operates within’. Prior to this, in November 2012, Amazon, Google and Starbucks were quizzed by the UK Public Accounts Select Committee over their controversial tax arrangements and were branded ‘immoral’ by the MPs questioning them. In 2011, Amazon had made over £3.3 billion in sales across the UK, but paid no corporation tax and in over 14 years of trading in the UK, Starbucks had paid just £8.6 million in corporation tax.


The request for information marks another step in a broader EU crackdown against large multi-nationals channelling money via ‘tax-havens’ and concluding ‘sweetheart’ deals with certain countries. Last month, the EU launched investigations into Apple, Starbucks and Fiat to establish whether the deals they had struck with authorities in Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg breach state aid rules. 

Tuesday 1 July 2014

BNP Paribas fined £5.2 billion for breaching trade sanctions


France’s biggest bank, BNP Paribas, has been fined £5.2 billion ($8.97 billion) for breaching US trade sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan between 2004 and 2012. It is also being prevented from clearing certain transactions in US dollars for one year from the beginning of 2015. BNP Paribas agreed to pay the fine to settle the charges against them after months of negotiations with US authorities. The fine is the largest for such a case in US history.

Previously, the largest fine levied against a bank by US regulators for sanctions violations was $1.9 billion paid by HSBC in 2012.

US Attorney-General, Eric Holder, stated at a press conference that BNP Paribas had gone to ‘elaborate lengths to conceal prohibited transactions, cover its tracks and deceive US authorities’. According to Mr Holder, the bank ‘deliberately and repeatedly violated longstanding US sanctions’.

Jean-Laurent Bonnafe, CEO of BNP Paribas, said, ‘We deeply regret the past misconduct that led to this settlement. The failures that have come to light in the course of this investigation run contrary to the principles on which BNP Paribas has always sought to operate. We have announced today a comprehensive plan to strengthen our internal controls and processes…Having this matter resolved is an important step forward for us. Apart from the impact of the fine, BNP Paribas will once again post solid results this quarter and we want to thank our clients, employees, shareholders and investors for their support throughout this difficult time’.

France’s banking supervisory authority, APCR, said in a statement that it had previously examined the liquidity and solvency of the bank and found it to be ‘quite solid’ and able to ‘absorb the anticipated consequences’.

Following the US authorities’ fine, Swiss regulator, FINMA, has announced that it has now closed its investigation into the activities of BNP Paribas. In a statement released in January 2014, FINMA said it believed that the bank had ‘persistently and seriously violated its duty to identify, limit and monitor the inherent risks, subsequently breaching supervisory provisions’.


Thursday 26 June 2014

Wonga to pay £2.6 million compensation for fake legal letters


The Financial Conduct Authority ('FCA') has ordered the UK’s biggest payday lending company, Wonga, to pay £2.6 million in compensation to consumers over misleading debt practices. Between October 2008 and November 2010, Wonga sent out letters to 44,556 customers claiming to be from law firms ‘Barker & Lowe’ and ‘Chainey, D’Amato & Shannon’. All the letters had in fact been sent by Wonga and the law firms named on the letterheads did not exist. The letters misled customers into thinking that their outstanding debts had been passed on to a law firm or other third party. In a statement from Wonga released yesterday, the company admits that the letters contained the ‘threat of adverse consequences if the debts were not repaid quickly. Charges were added to some customer accounts as a result of this practice’. The poor practice was initially uncovered by the former consumer credit regulator, the Office of Fair Trading and was picked up by the FCA in April this year after it become responsible for regulating the consumer credit industry.
The FCA’s director of supervision, Clive Adamson, said today, ‘Wonga’s misconduct was very serious because it had the effect of exacerbating an already difficult situation for circumstances in arrears. We are pleased that Wonga has been working with us to put matters right for its customers and to ensure that these historical practices are truly a thing of the past’.

Consumer group Which? has also responded to yesterday’s announcements. Richard Lloyd, Which? executive director stated, ‘It’s right the Financial Conduct Authority is taking a tougher line on irresponsible lending and it doesn’t get much more irresponsible than this. It’s a shocking new low for the payday industry that is already dogged by bad practice and Wonga deserves to have the book thrown at it. The FCA must now also clamp down on excessive fees and charges, starting with default fees charged by some payday lenders, to show it is serious about getting a fairer deal for borrowers’.

Tim Weller, Wonga’s interim boss, said, ‘We would like to apologise unreservedly to anyone affected by the historical debt collection activity and for any distress caused as a result. The practice was unacceptable and we voluntarily ceased it nearly four years ago’.
 
Wonga is due to start compensating customers from the end of July, including a flat rate £50 settlement to all who received the letters for the distress and inconvenience caused and a refund of charges associated with sending the letters.

Saturday 7 June 2014

Financial Conduct Authority to crack down on ‘logbook lenders’

 
The Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) has called for ‘logbook lenders’ to ‘dramatically raise their standards’ if they want to continue trading. Logbook lenders supply loans that are secured against a borrower’s vehicle.

Stemming from research conducted between November and December 2013, the FCA has found evidence of ‘poor firm behaviour, including little or no affordability checks’, with some applicants even being encouraged to manipulate details of their income on application forms. The FCA also came across evidence indicating that consumers were being pressurised and put on the spot to take out a loan without being informed about the existence of the statutory cooling off period. In other cases, borrowers had not been made aware of the total costs involved and that missed repayments could lead to their vehicles eventually being repossessed.
 
The FCA also found that many consumers had little knowledge of the concept of a logbook loan and what it meant in terms of, for example, the ownership status of their vehicle. Being desperate for the loan, many consumers also failed to shop around and were found to focus more on weekly payment amounts than the total sum of what they had agreed to repay.
 
According to the FCA, logbook loans range in size from approximately £500 to £50,000 and are often used by vulnerable consumers in difficult circumstances who have exhausted other means of potential credit. The loans usually last for about six to 18 months, with a typical APR of 400% or higher.
 
Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the FCA said, ‘People who use logbook loans are often in difficult circumstances with few other borrowing options. The last thing that should be happening is for them to be squeezed yet more or even threatened, but that is what our research has found’. Woolard continued, ‘Logbook lenders should consider this as fair notice to improve and put their customers first or we won’t hesitate to take action’.
 
Responding to the FCA’s statement and accompanying report, shadow minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, Stella Creasy, said, ‘Time and again this government has been too slow in recognising and reacting to dangerous practices in the consumer credit market…This research makes a damning case to show that there’s more than one toxic type of company out there causing serious damage to the finances of families’.

The FCA took control of consumer credit matters from the Office of Fair Trading on 1 April 2014 and this week’s statement on logbook lenders forms part of a swathe of new rules and standards for the consumer credit industry to adhere to and signifies a new, firmer approach to regulating the sector.

Thursday 5 June 2014

Is the new London Rental Standard a ‘meaningless gimmick’?


Last month, Boris Johnson launched the London Rental Standard (‘LRS’) in a bid to improve the conditions faced by tenants in London’s sprawling private rental sector. The LRS is a voluntary set of minimum standards expected of landlords, managing agents and letting agents operating in London’s private rental market.
 
The scheme brings together seven landlord accreditation schemes under a single framework and has been drawn up following extensive consultations, including a three month public consultation between December 2012 and February 2013.
 
Certificates of accreditation will be awarded to landlords and letting organisations that meet a number of core requirements, attend a one-day course, sign a code of practice and agree to a declaration stating that they are fit and proper. Many of the common problems experienced by tenants (and already covered by legislation) are touched on in the scheme, including written rental agreements, the need for clarity regarding agency fees, protected deposits and repairs. According to the LRS, urgent repairs should ‘wherever possible…be dealt with within three working days of a landlord being notified’. Additionally, landlords ‘should always be contactable and must respond within a reasonable period of time’.
 
Extortionate agency fees and disproportionately high rental costs are not the only problems London’s tenants are faced with. High costs often bear no relation to the cramped, dingy homes left in poor condition many Londoners have to put up with. Kings Cross based letting agency ‘Relocate Me’ faced a media backlash this month after posting an advert featuring a single bed crammed into a kitchenette, along with a wardrobe (which blocked access to the front door) and a dining room. Described as a ‘modern studio apartment’ in Islington by the letting agent, the flat was on offer for £737 a month and has reportedly been snapped up by one, presumably desperate, tenant.
 
Announcing the new standards scheme, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said, ‘With more of London’s workforce and young families living in rented homes, this growing sector is vital to meeting the capital’s housing needs and must not be overlooked. The standard aims to improve the experience of everyone involved, from landlord to tenant, with a clear set of good practice rules’.
 
However, Labour London Assembly member, Tom Copley, has criticised Boris Johnson for introducing a ‘meaningless gimmick’ and ‘wasting two years consulting on a voluntary standard that is not worth the paper it’s written on’. Mr Copley believes that the Mayor ‘should have been lobbying for government legislation to create longer tenancies as standard, caps on annual rent rises and a ban on letting agents’ fees for tenants’. Grainia Long, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, shares similar reservations. Ms Long hopes ‘that the voluntary nature of the scheme will not undermine its impact. Much work will need to be done to ensure it is not simply ignored by the worst offenders’.  

 A key shortcoming of the scheme is indeed the fact that it is voluntary. ‘Good’ landlords and agencies keen to enjoy the potential business benefits of being part of the scheme will be the ones applying for accreditation, while the ‘rogues’ in the sector are likely to steer well clear of it and continue to exploit prospective tenants desperate for a home in the capital.  Although a small step in the right direction, the LRS is not a failsafe solution for fixing the private rental market both in London and across the UK. 

Monday 19 May 2014

New UK banking standards body to be launched later this year


A new voluntary standards body for British banks and building societies will be launched later this year to 'raise standards and competence' within the sector.
 
Funded by the banks themselves at a cost of between £7m and £10m a year and relying on voluntary support rather than statutory powers, the new body will be set up as a 'champion for better banking standards'. It will be underpinned by a 'voluntary and aspirational' goal based on the credo that the banking industry must raise its own game in order to win back public trust.
 
Richard Lambert, former director general of the Confederation of British Industry and author of today's 'Banking Standards Review' report, is under no illusions about the difficulty (and potential controversy) that the new standards body will face in influencing the ethical standards of the same institutions that are providing its finance. According to the report, the new body will have to establish its credibility and independence from the start and 'will have to show that it is willing to set demanding standards, and to speak out when appropriate'.
 
Britain's biggest banks and building societies, namely Barclays, HSBC, Santander, RBS, Lloyds, Nationwide and Standard Chartered, pledged to set up the body in light of recommendations made by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards last year amid a series of scandals involving benchmark interest rates, breaches of anti-money laundering rules and the misselling of complex financial products and loan insurance.
 
The new standards body will require participating institutions to commit to improving their culture and practices and publically report on their finances each year. Standards of good practice will be set, which may include whistleblowing procedures, staff values and behaviours and managing high-frequency trading.
 
At the end of his report, Lambert charts the future face of a banking utopia in 10 years' time and hopes that by then, 'balance sheets of banks doing business in the UK have been restored to health', more bankers have qualifications of one kind or another and 'politicians will have found other footballs to kick'.
 
Recognising the feat of the challenges ahead, Lambert does however concede that 'Realising this vision will require an enormous amount of heavy lifting by the banks and building societies in the years ahead, and by everyone who works in them. It will also require a different approach to their customers, and a much broader view of their role in society. But this is what the public has the right to expect. And it is what the country needs'.
 
Keen to build on and accelerate 'present momentum' on the issue, Lambert says that work to set up the new body should start immediately, with the next step being establishing an independent panel to appoint the new body's Chairman and approve the Chief Executive.  

Monday 12 May 2014

Housing crisis threatens London's future business prospects


According to a report published today by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), London’s housing crisis could seriously undermine the city’s economic competiveness and lead to problems for both employers and employees. The LCCI’s report argues that businesses relying on easy access to a skilled workforce could face staff retention and productivity problems if employees continue to be priced out of the London housing market and are forced to take longer commutes into work.
To overcome the capital’s chronic housing shortage, the LCCI suggests that more land should be secured for development and more builders with the capacity to deliver these homes should be available. Specifically, the LCCI recommends that all brownfield sites in London should be registered by the Mayor of London and private land owners would then be given four years to start building on such sites before a compulsory purchase would be enacted. Public sector landowners would have to start building within two years of being registered.
Public sector organisations are estimated to own as much as 40% of all brownfield land in London. Over 653 hectares are owned by the Greater London Authority, while a further 29.4 hectares are owned by the London Fire Brigade, 45.9 hectares by the London Legacy Development Corporation and 103.3 hectares by the Metropolitan Police Service. Other bodies like the NHS, local authorities and government departments also hold brownfield land in London, but do not publish this data. The LCCI suggests that ‘excess public sector land’ should be sold for development.
One controversial proposal in the LCCI’s report recommends that local authorities work with the Mayor of London to evaluate the potential to reclassify ‘a proportion of poor quality greenbelt land’ within the Greater London area for housing. The LCCI states that although any proposals to build on greenbelt land will ‘stir strong emotions amongst residents local to affected sites, the creation of truly “garden” suburbs in a handful of formerly private greenbelt areas could secure the delivery of the homes that London needs for generations to come’.

Over the last decade, London’s population has grown by around a million, faster than at any other time previously, to 8.4 million in 2013.  However, not enough new homes have been built to cope with this increase, with around 20,000 new homes a year being built in London over the last 10 years. To ensure that developers are producing the homes that the majority of Londoners need (those earning less than £50,000 and in the low to mid-housing price range), the LCCI suggests that the Mayor of London should set a new annual target for the creation of homes affordable to those earning up to £50,000.
LCCI’s survey of London businesses also found that 59% of employer respondents believed that increased housing costs have led to a greater pressure to increase wages for three in five employees. Rising housing costs have, according to the LCCI’s survey, also diminished businesses’ ability to recruit and retain skilled workers, with 42% of businesses stating that increased housing costs have had a negative impact on recruitment. One third (33%) of London firms surveyed believed that the lack of affordable housing in London affected punctuality and productivity. LCCI says that ‘employees that regularly endure travel fatigue are unlikely to be as productive and motivated as they could be, as long commutes have been found to make workers less happy and more anxious’.
Speaking about the LCCI’s proposals, LCCI’s Chief Executive, Colin Stanbridge, says, ‘There is no magic wand that can change this situation overnight but we urgently need to start building many more homes that ordinary Londoners can afford to buy or rent, otherwise we could find the workforce that is the capital’s greatest asset under threat’.

Tuesday 22 April 2014

HMRC proposes selling taxpayers' financial data to third parties



Under proposals currently being considered by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), anonymised financial data from taxpayers could be purchased by third party private companies, researchers and public bodies. Last week, a spokesman from HMRC stated that ‘no firm decisions’ had been taken on the issue, but that the confidentiality of taxpayers’ data would remain of the utmost importance. Despite such reassurances, former Conservative MP, David Davis, has branded the proposals as ‘borderline insane’. Indeed, HMRC does not have an unblemished record when it comes to dealing with confidential data. In 2007, HMRC lost computer disks containing confidential details of approximately 25 million child benefit recipients.
According to HMRC documents, plans for ‘charging options’ are being considered, meaning that firms may be required to pay HMRC to access the data. Consultations for the relaxation of HMRC data-sharing rules began last July, but concerns have been raised over such plans in light of a similar and currently suspended NHS initiative proposing the sharing of anonymised NHS medical records.

Speaking to the Guardian about HMRCs data-sharing proposals, David Davis said, ‘The officials who drew this up clearly have no idea of the risks to data in an electronic age’. Meanwhile, Emma Carr, deputy director of civil rights campaign group, Big Brother Watch, has said, ‘Given the huge uproar about similar plans for medical records, you would have hoped HMRC would have learned that trying to sneak plans like this under the radar is not the way to build trust or develop good policy’. A spokesman from HMRC, however, stated, ‘HMRC would only share data where this would generate clear public benefits, and where there are robust safeguards in place’.

Tuesday 15 April 2014

Calling time on premium rate calls for consumers

 
On 14th April 2014, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) hit out against financial services firms, including high-street banks, charging customers premium telephone rates for after-sales customer care or complaints and announced its plans to launch a consultation on the issue later this year. Many financial services firms provide, particularly for existing customers, premium rate telephone numbers for consumers which can turn out painfully expensive when a simple query unexpectedly turns into a drawn out call where customers are put on 'hold' or passed to a different department or more senior call-taker (sounding familiar?).

The FCA's consultation will propose that rules relating to charges for customer services or complaints are standarised and capped at the cost of a basic rate telephone call. The consultation will also seek to examine a range of proposals aimed at improving complaints handling by financial services firms, and, amongst other points, look at issues regarding complaints records and respond to recommendations proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards last year.  At present, companies authorised by the FCA are required to provide customers with a free channel for making a complaint, however, this could be in the form of an email address or by post rather than a free telephone number. The FCA's announcement yesterday refers to a campaign led by consumer group Which? calling for principles relating to telephone calls outlined in the forthcoming EU Consumer Rights Directive coming into force this summer  to be applied to financial services firms used by millions of consumers across the UK.
 
Christopher Woolard, the FCA’s director of policy, risk and research said yesterday, ‘It is not fair that customers often have to use expensive phone lines when calling firms to ask for help or to complain...We would welcome companies looking again at the rates they charge for phone calls ahead of our consultation’. Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd welcomed the FCA’s announcements stating, ‘We're pleased the FCA agrees customers shouldn't have to pay a premium to talk to their bank or insurer. Changing the rules so financial firms can only offer basic rate helplines would be a big win for the 87,000 people who supported our campaign’.
 


Tuesday 1 April 2014

9 million Britons in serious debt according to Financial Conduct Authority


The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) watchdog has today, 1 April 2014, announced that approximately nine million Britons are in serious debt, with the problem spanning across all income levels. In a report called ‘Consumer credit and consumers in vulnerable circumstances’ (the ‘Report’), which publishes findings from the Government’s Monetary Advice Service, has also revealed that of the 9 million Britons in debt, only 1.5 million have sought advice on their debts and 1.8 million are in denial about the state of their finances.  

According to the Repot, over the last two decades, the UK population has become increasingly more indebted, primarily owing to a significant increase in mortgage debts. In its entirety, the UK owes approximately £1,476 billion, an average of nearly £56,000 per household, £6,000 of which can be attributed to consumer debts. The most common factors contributing to unmanageable debt are, according to the Report, a change in circumstances and high levels of accumulated debt. Low savings, income volatility and high debt/income ratios have all been found to reduce people’s resilience to income shocks and increase the likelihood of problem debt occurring. The Report categorises borrowers into three distinct types, survival borrowers (who use credit for their day to day expenses), lifestyle borrowers (who use credit for large and/or one-off events) and reluctant borrowers (who tend to limit their use of credit) and suggests that debt problems can be further compounded by an individual’s skills, knowledge, confidence and biases, as well as through a lack of access to credit. Indebtedness has also been found to have a detrimental impact on people’s health and well-being, particularly in respect of mental health issues including anxiety, stress and depression.
The Report has been published on the day that the FCA has taken over the regulation of the UK’s £200 billion consumer credit industry from the Office of Fair Trading. Over 50,000 businesses, including 500 payday loan companies will now be regulated under the FCA’s new rules aimed at ensuring customers are treated fairly and given the information they need to help them make informed choices. Martin Wheatley, the FCA’s Chief Executive acknowledged, “We have a big task ahead; it’s our job to make sure firms put their customers at the heart of their business and don’t just see them as an easy target or a profit line”. Wheatley also indicated the FCA’s approach to consumer credit providers who fail to follow their new rules, “We won’t shy away from taking tough, decisive action to make sure that the people who rely on these products are treated fairly.  There will be some firms that don’t get the message, or won’t play ball, those firms should know that we won’t let them carry on”. In the run up to today, the FCA has been assessing the market to understand where and how the worst financial detriment occurs and will use the findings from the Report to further develop its regulation of payday loan companies and the consumer credit industry as a whole.

Sunday 16 February 2014

The Central African Republic: past and present


Arguably one of the poorest countries in Africa, the Central African Republic (CAR), is no stranger to scenes of extreme poverty, political instability, violence and bloodshed. Despite an abundance of natural resources, including gold, diamonds, uranium, oil and timber, the country is marred by financial, political and social chaos, and, according to Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, currently facing  a ‘humanitarian catastrophe of unspeakable proportions’.[1] Since fighting erupted in December 2013, approximately 1,000 people were killed during a single two day period, over 1 million have been displaced from their homes, and, as of mid-January this year, 60% of the population had no available food stocks[2].
Pre-colonial period
Although paid scant scholarly attention and, until recently, largely ignored by the media and international politicians, the CAR has a long and tumultuous history. The landlocked area that now forms the CAR has been inhabited since the Stone Age (roughly 6000 BC)[3], which is well before any widely publicised ancient Egyptian civilisations emerged. Later on in its history, slave raiding was a severe problem in the North-eastern parts of the CAR, particularly during the 1870s, and left the territory with one of Africa’s lowest population densities. Slave-buyers were often noted as being Muslim, but, according to Jacqueline Woodford, author of the most recent academic book on the country in English, non-Muslim Africans were also complicit in the trade.[4]
The French
As the power of the slave traders gradually declined, French colonialism spread. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 left much of the central, north and west of Africa in French hands. Although some formed alliances with the colonists for economic or political reasons, resistance to colonial rule, despite being largely absent from historical record, did exist. In Berbérati (now the CAR’s third largest city) in 1954, protests emerged when a local administrator refused to arrest a Frenchman, on whose property the bodies of two men, one of whom had been employed by the Frenchman, were found. Meanwhile, over 100 locals who allegedly shouted anti-French slogans and sang anti-French songs were arrested and charged.[5]
The road to autonomy
By this stage, however, all inhabitants of the Federation of French Equatorial Africa (‘AEF’) (including those in what is now known as the CAR), had been granted French citizenship and were permitted to establish local assemblies.[6] Accordingly, in 1949, Barthélemy Boganda, a Catholic and advocate of African emancipation, created the colony’s first political party, the Movement for the Social Evolution of Black Africa. A French constitutional referendum then dissolved the AEF in 1958 and on 1 December 1958 the colony of Ubangi-Shari became a self-governing territory known as the Central African Republic, with Boganda becoming the country’s first prime minister.
Despite the appearance of domestic autonomy, the French still had a significant influence over the country’s financial and military affairs.[7] However, full-independence dawned and, as suggested by Thomas O’Toole, author of arguably the most comprehensive English-language book on the CAR to date, ‘Had anyone been asked in 1959 to put together a “worse-case scenario” for the history of the first thirty years of the CAR, one might have imagined something close to the actual sequence of events that has unfolded’.[8]
Independence, coups and a ‘coronation’
Boganda remained as the country’s prime minister until his death in a mysterious plane crash in March 1959,[9] after which David Dacko, Boganda’s nephew, took the helm. It was under Dacko’s administration that the CAR became fully independent on 13 August 1960. However, Dacko’s tenure came to an abrupt end on 1 January 1966 when Dacko’s cousin, Jean Bédal Bokassa, led a coup and took control of the government. According to the US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published in January 2014, Bokassa was implicated in massive embezzlement and human rights abuses and his dictatorial rule culminated in his self-coronation as emperor of the CAR in 1976.[10] France reportedly covered much of the $20 million bill for the pseudo-coronation – a sum equal to the entirety of the country’s national gross domestic product at the time.[11] Following riots, a trip to Libya in search of aid and the murder of between 50 to 100 schoolchildren in the country’s capital, Bangui, Bokassa was deposed in a coup backed by French troops in 1979. Bokassa was found guilty of murder and embezzlement in 1987, initially receiving a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment – he was released in 1993 and died in 1996.
Following a period of further political instability, the CAR held its first multi-party elections, in which Ange-Félix Patassé was elected president. Instability increased and violent army mutinies between 1996 and 1997 prompted the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping operation. In 2002, Patassé allegedly called on a rebel group based in the Democratic Republic of Congo to supress domestic insurgents. This, according to the US CRS, led to large scale abuses against civilians, for which the leader of the rebel group in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Jean-Pierre Bemba, is currently on trial before the International Criminal Court.[12]
‘Séléka’ and ‘anti-balaka’ militias
 
François Bozizé, an army general, eventually rebelled against Patassé and took power in March 2003.[13] Over time, Bozizé became increasingly unpopular and his rule was marked by insurgency in the north and North-east of the country. It is within this context that ‘Séléka’ (translated as ‘Alliance’ from the local Sango language), a loose alliance of untrained and predominately Muslim rebels, was formed in 2012. After capturing a string of towns across the country, Séléka overthrew the government on 24 March 2013, leaving Bozizé apparently fleeing the country in a helicopter with five suitcases and Séléka leader, Michel Djotodia, declaring himself as the country’s first Muslim president.[14]
According to Dodfrey Byaruhanga, Amnesty International’s CAR researcher, Séléka forces attacked, executed and tortured civilians, indiscriminately shelled communities and forcibly conscripted children to their army.[15] The level of unrest prompted Djotdodia to call for Séléka to disband on 13 September 2013, but the violence continued.
Humanitarian crisis
In December 2013, ex- Séléka rebels are reported to have killed nearly 1,000 people in the country’s capital, Bangui, over a single two day period.[16] Brutal reprisal attacks against the country’s Muslim population (comprising approximately 15 per cent of the population[17]) have since been carried out by Christian ‘anti-balaka’ (‘anti-machete’) militias. Although religious tensions are almost certainly not the only cause of the current crisis, ‘inter-communal tensions over access to resources, control over trade and national identity are being expressed along ethno-religious lines’.[18] Former colonizer France has sent over 1,600 troops to help stabilise the situation and there are currently nearly 6,000 peacekeepers from the African Union on the ground.[19] Even the peacekeeping efforts are not straightforward. Chadian forces are among the African troops who comprise the bulk of the peacekeepers in and around Bangui. They have been closely allied with the Séléka and have been accused of joining them in attacks on Christian communities.[20]
Central African leaders forced Djotodia to step down as CAR’s president during a regional summit hosted in Chad on 10 January 2014. On 20 January this year, Catherine Samba-Panza was elected as the country’s new transitional president. Despite the growing presence of peacekeepers and a new president, widespread chaos and violence continue, culminating in the declaration by Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees on 12 February 2014, that ‘massive ethno-religious cleansing is continuing’.[21] The CAR’s history is littered with inept and corrupt leaders, extreme poverty and atrocious violence – a state of affairs that shows no sign of abating. 


[3] Jacqueline Woodfork, Culture and Customs of the Central African Republic (London, 2006), p. 10.
[4] Woodfork, p. 11.
[5] Woodfork, p. 12.
[7] Woodfork, p. 15.
[8] Thomas O’Toole, The Central African Republic: The Continent’s Hidden Heart (London, 1986), p. 40.
[11] Woodfork, p. 15.