Subscribers iconSite access

home subscribe

Community Investors' blog

Print
Email
Text size
Comment

Dear Darling...

19 June 2008 [0 comments]

The UK is definitely having a hard time of it lately. House prices are falling dramatically across the country and food and fuel prices are increasing so much that it has caused lorry drivers to take a stand – driving at slug’s pace on the motorway’s.

But this isn’t all. Today, the Governor of the Bank of England had to put pen to paper and write a letter to the Chancellor explaining why inflation has reached 3.3 per cent – way above the Government’s two per cent target.

Over recent months we have seen the Monetary Policy Committee cutting interest rates (which now stands at five per cent), a move that may strike many as somewhat backwards - considering that the way to reduce inflation is to increase interest rates.

But, King is one step ahead of us – his letter points out that, ‘When setting Bank Rate the Committee has faced a balancing act between two risks. On the upside, the risk that above-target inflation could persist explains why the Committee has not responded more aggressively to signs that the economy is slowing. On the downside, the risk is that the slowdown could be so sharp that inflation did not just return to the target but was pulled below.’

However, it still seems that the maths are just not adding up. If fuel prices have gone up by 20 per cent, food prices have risen by 7-8 per cent and energy has increased by 14 per cent, how has inflation only increased to 3.3 per cent?

This is simply a result of how the Government chooses to measure inflation – the Consumer Prices Index. However, this index conveniently misses out those things that have the biggest impact on inflation – petrol, council tax, utilities and housing costs.

All is explained if we take a sneaky peak at the real inflation indicator – the Retail Price Index. According to the Office of National Statistics, the RPI is 4.3 per cent – a much more realistic figure.

In a recent statement our Prime Minister claimed that he was the man to get the country through this economic slowdown stating that he had done it before and will do it again. However, much of his ‘success’ as Chancellor came from switching the index used to measure inflation – when the switch was made, the CPI was running at 1.3 per cent, whereas the RPI was 2.8 per cent.

So yes, throughout his 10 years as Chancellor we may have seen lower interest rates and lower inflation figures, but that doesn’t mean that he has all of the answers and while the Governor and the Chancellor exchanges niceties the British public will simply have to cope with the rising costs of living.

There are currently no comments on this post.

 

Advertisement

Related Content

Interesting links
 

Leave a comment

Comment


Q&A More investors' blog

European sector review

16 October 2008 [0 comments]

Henk Potts warns investors that power utilities are not as defensive as they might appear to be

Market view

8 October 2008 [0 comments]

Robert Tyerman stresses the need for investors to be selective as markets tread a tentative path towards recovery

Weathering the storm

2 October 2008 [0 comments]

What Investment catches up with a selection of investment clubs to see how they are faring in the current stock market turbulence

 
 

Recommendations Recommendations

 

Q&A Q&A forum

Downsizing option 25 July 2008 [0 comments]

 

We have lived in our very large house in a very small village for nearly 25 years, where we have built a life and are very happy. The house now has a very high value in financial terms.
However, we are now looking at the prospect of having to make a downsize move, mostly because of the financial implications of owning a house of this size, such as higher heating bills, council tax, insurance and other essential expenditure.
We have looked into the area of equity release schemes but have constantly been told that it is more cost effective to downsize to a smaller property. However, even if we did downsize to such a property, it would still be of a high value in this area.
Additionally, it would be very expensive to make this move, considering the potential costs involved in moving home. We have calculated that it will cost us close to £100,000 to move, taking into account estate agent fees, legal fees, stamp duty and various moving costs. This £100,000 is immediately wasted and, on a personal note, we would have to start a new life in our retirement.
These factors therefore bring us back to equity release. We would require an additional income of up to £20,000 per annum for possibly a ten-year period before we need to move. If the calculation was for a property valued at £1.5 million, we would only need an increase in the property value of around two per cent a year to cover the withdrawal of £20,000 for income and the interest payments. Would this be the preferable solution in investment terms for our situation, rather than taking the money out of the property by downsizing, especially in view of the current outlook for house prices, and then investing the funds elsewhere and paying more tax on the funds we have released?
G Boot, Kent

more

 

Q&A Events

 
moreMedia Magnate Awards
12th November n/a
moreQuoted Company Awards
28th January London
moreM&A Awards 2009
18th February London