The 25-basis-point hike by the US Federal Reserve in March was almost a fait accompli after February’s nonfarm payrolls figure easily outpaced economists’ expectations.

Accompanying wage growth and falling unemployment were two more ticks in the box. The US is humming right now, with consumers and businesses more confident than they have been in almost a decade. One of our global equity analysts, recently back from Midwestern America, reports that optimism there is palpable.

Investors are now discussing just how many interest rate increases we could see this year. The Fed funds rate is now at the 0.75-1.00% band. Two more rises seem locked in this year, barring any unexpected calamity. But could the Fed funds rate hit 1.5% by the year’s end? Or 1.75%?

Investors remain bullish and the economic data backs up that sentiment. Around the world, business and consumer sentiment is improving, along with higher inflation and lower unemployment. There is still some choppy water ahead though. The UK Government is gearing up to trigger Article 50 this month. And apparently a second run at secession by Scotland (and Northern Ireland) could follow quickly behind.

Dutch right-winger Geert Wilders and his anti-immigrant and eurosceptic PVV party should garner a plurality in the Netherlands’ election this month. Mr Wilders’ ability to stitch together a coalition seems less convincing than his poll numbers, however. Still, 2016 taught us not to underestimate the possible.


1 month

3 months

6 months

1 year

FTSE All-Share





FTSE 100





FTSE 250





FTSE SmallCap





S&P 500





Euro Stoxx










Shanghai SE





FTSE Emerging





Source: FE Analytics, data sterling total return to 28 February

Politics, statistics, facts

The Chancellor charted a course for another parliament of austerity in the Spring Budget as he continues to chase his predecessor’s goal of a budget surplus.

It will take much longer than originally expected and even longer than we had thought a year ago, despite the UK economy’s welcomed post-Brexit buoyancy. The next few years are likely to be ones of belt tightening as we try to reduce the weight of our borrowing.

Chancellor Philip Hammond pointed out that the UK spends more on interest than it does on police and defence combined. Numbers are malleable things though.

Of the roughly £1.7tn of outstanding gilts, just shy of a quarter are held by the Bank of England, while the government’s Debt Management Office holds another 7.5%. That means 31.5% of the country’s debt is held by itself. And a similar proportion of the interest payments of this debt are going to itself. If you strip out these holdings, which seem unlikely to be sold back into the market, then the public accounts look much rosier: Debt to GDP is about 60% rather than 85% and our annual interest payments are £34bn not £50bn.

Should we include this debt in our policy discussions, if the nation has effectively bought it back? And how would it affect government decisions if it wasn’t?

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the changes to self-employed NICs, announced at last week’s Budget, would mean more money for those earning under £15,570. The maximum loss – which would hit those earning more than £45,000 – would be about £590. A quick back of the envelope calculation using HMRC figures confirms that. However, the headlines quickly turned against the Chancellor: he had broken the Government’s promise to not raise taxes and was now doing so to take from the strivers. The numbers don’t seem to back up that accusation, but then, numbers can be manipulated.

Self-employed workers have a point: they are usually in more tenuous employment than their salaried colleagues and are not eligible for sick pay or maternity leave. A lesser rate of NIC is fair. But the conversation should be around how much this should be and whether people would rather have more money or less tenuous employment.

Over the past few years, the number of self-employed has skyrocketed, with much of that move driven by tax, according to the several think tanks. At the moment, some companies have a strong incentive to push workers into self-employed status. They don’t have to pay any NICs for contractors and can avoid offering the rights of full-employment. Self-employed workers are incentivised to go along with this because of a tax loophole. If that distortion is closed, will that mean companies will cut jobs? Or will they be pushed to offer formerly contracted employees a better deal? And if so, will it mean that businesses pay more in NI? Should we even pay NI? Perhaps NI as it was envisioned in the early 20th century is outmoded and would be better folded into the income tax, creating a single simple payroll levy.

These are the debates we should be having, not knee-jerk arguments about political process.

Bond Yields

Sovereign 10-year

Feb 28

Jan 31
















Source: Bloomberg



Important legal information

This area of the site is for professional advisers

Please read this page before proceeding, it explains certain legal and regulatory restrictions applicable to the distribution of this information. It is your responsibility to inform yourselves of and to observe all applicable laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction.

This section of the website is directed only at investment advisers and other financial intermediaries who are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

The information provided in this site is directed at UK investment advisers only and must not be circulated to private clients or to the general public. It does not constitute an offer to sell, or solicit an offer to purchase any investments by anyone in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorised or in which a member of the Rathbone Group is not authorised to do so.

I confirm that I am an investment intermediary authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. I have read and understood the legal information and risk warnings below:

Important Information (Terms and Conditions)

The information contained on this site is believed to be accurate at the date of publication but no warranty of accuracy is given and the information is subject to change without notice. Any opinions or estimates included herein constitute a judgement as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Furthermore, no responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of any information contained within sites provided by third parties that may have links to or from our pages.

Rathbone Investment Management Limited ("RIM") is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Registered Office: Port of Liverpool Building, Pier Head, Liverpool L3 1NW. Registered in England No 01448919.

In accordance with regulations, all electronic communications and telephone calls between Rathbones and its clients are recorded and stored for a minimum period of six months.

The information provided in this site is directed at UK investors only. It does not constitute an offer to sell, or solicit an offer to purchase any investments by anyone in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorised or in which a member of the Rathbone Group is not authorised to do so.

In particular, the information herein is not for distribution and does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of any offer to buy any securities in France and the United States of America to or for the benefit of United States persons (being resident in the United States of America or partnerships or corporations organised under the laws of the United States of America or any state, territory or possession thereof).

In order to comply with money laundering and other regulations, additional documentation for identification purposes may be required.

Rathbones shall have no liability for any data transmission errors such as data loss, damage or alteration of any kind including, but not limited to, any direct, indirect or consequential damage arising out of the use of services provided or referred to in this website.

Past performance should not be seen as an indication of future performance.

The value of investments and the income from them can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested, particularly if your client does not continue with the investment over the longer term.

Changes in the rate of exchange between currencies may cause the value of an investment to go up or down.

Interest rate fluctuations are likely to affect the capital value of investments within bond funds. When long term interest rates rise the capital value of units is likely to fall and vice versa. The effect will be more apparent on funds that invest significantly in long dated securities. The value of capital and income will fluctuate as interest rates and credit ratings of the issuing companies change.

Tax levels and reliefs are those currently applicable and may change and the value of any tax advantage will depend on individual circumstances.

Investing in emerging markets or small companies may be potentially volatile, as these investments are high risk.

The design, text and images are owned, except as expressly stated by members of the Rathbone Group. They may not be copied, transmitted, displayed, performed, distributed, licensed, altered, framed, stored or otherwise used in whole or in part or in any manner without the written consent of Rathbones except to the extent permitted and under the procedures specified in the copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended and then only with notices of Rathbones' rights.

Rate this page:
No votes yet