• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Slough welcomes commitment that Office for Local Government ‘will not be a burden’

    June 30, 2022

  • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities

    June 29, 2022

  • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets

    June 28, 2022

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Cutting the red tape on specified investments

0
  • by David Green
  • in Blogs · David Green
  • — 27 Sep, 2012

I had a most enjoyable time at the 4th annual Local Authority Treasurers’ Investment Forum this week. It was great to meet so many of my blog’s readers, and there was an excellent mix of speakers to listen to and panellists to fire questions at.

For my 20 minutes at the lectern, I did my best to rip the specified investments regime to shreds, despite spotting the original author of the Guidance on Local Government Investments in the audience about a minute into speaking.  I’m fully in agreement with the spirit of the guidance, which as Trevor Emmott kindly reminded me in the interval, is just to recommend that local authorities think more carefully about their higher risk investments.  It’s the detail on determining high security and high liquidity that I have a problem with.

To get into the “low risk” specified category, an investment must be of high credit quality.  So far, so good.  But since each authority is free to set its own definition of high credit quality, the temptation is to adjust the definition to meet whatever you want to do.  After all, I don’t see many councils listing the low credit quality investments they intend to make in their annual strategies.  On liquidity however, the government gives us a strict limit – anything maturing within 12 months of being arranged is apparently liquid enough.  You can’t pay your bills very quickly with a deposit that’s still got 10 months left to run, though.  The guidance also ignores the fact that instruments like gilts and bonds can be sold or repoed before maturity – you can pay your bills using cash from your 2 year gilts.

My other bugbear is that investments are permanently classified as specified or not when they are made, with no allowance for changing circumstances later.  So your investment in a recently downgraded bank can remain specified and supposedly “low risk” no matter how low the rating falls, while a government bond that matures tomorrow will still be non-specified and allegedly “high risk” if it was originally bought more than a year ago.  Indeed, some local authorities will still have Icelandic investments on their books that are still specified investments, as they were originally made with a bank meeting their definition of a high credit rating and were due to mature within one year.  Would any sensible person class these as low risk today?

It’s interesting to compare the local authority rules with Monitor’s statutory guidance for Foundation Trusts.  In the NHS, safe harbour investments must have an A+ credit rating and mature within 3 months – the same time limit as the definition of cash equivalents in International Accounting Standards.  And the FSA rules for banks’ liquid assets buffers only allow investments in governments, central banks and supranationals that can be realised for cash within 8 days.  Both of these seem rather better definitions of high security and high liquidity than CLG’s.

Trevor was asked to comment on my points, and while Sir Humphrey Appleby might have defended his nine-year-old work to the death, it was refreshing to hear CLG’s capital finance guru agree that it could be time for a review.  Any decision will clearly be for ministers to make, but Trevor did remind us that the government hasn’t seen the need to issue any guidance on local authority borrowing.  And so if CIPFA’s Prudential Code is good enough to regulate how we contract to pay interest for 50 years or longer, maybe the Treasury Management Code can be trusted to guide how we manage our investments, allowing the government guidance to be withdrawn?  Cutting red tape and central bureaucracy while promoting local accountability – this will be music to Eric Pickles’ ears!

Share

You may also like...

  • Income losses and lack of data hamper Whitehall’s support of councils in the pandemic 4th Jun, 2021
  • Consultation confusion as treasurers bizarrely urged to ‘take back control’ 5th Nov, 2021
  • Collaboration the key to district recovery post-pandemic 13th Apr, 2021
  • Investing today: nowhere to hide 20th May, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities
    • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets
    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 7 hours ago

    Hillier confirmed as keynote speaker for LATIF/FDs’ Summit: Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has been confirmed as a keynote speaker for Room151’s combined Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) and FDs Summit. The… dlvr.it/ST70F7 pic.twitter.com/hxV676Iley

    Room151 7 hours ago

    Councils’ funding at risk due to ‘undercounting’ in census data: Population estimates in London and Manchester may have been significantly underestimated in the 2021 census potentially threatening government funding for frontline services in these… dlvr.it/ST707J pic.twitter.com/VncIyaXa01

    Room151 2 days ago

    Gove at LGA: councils to receive two-year financial settlement: Michael Gove has announced that councils will receive a two-year financial settlement from next year to provide authorities with “financial certainty” and allow them to plan ahead. The… dlvr.it/ST0kSV pic.twitter.com/wxL3UM4sGO

    Room151 2 days ago

    LGPS valuations: the digital journey: Rob Bilton explains how technology is helping to deliver one of the most complex data exercises in the world of public sector pensions. The 2022 valuations for LGPS funds in[...] dlvr.it/ST0kMq pic.twitter.com/VxjSPC2Uvo

    Room151 6 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 1 week ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Andrew Blake-Herbert on the trials and merits of Project Athena
  • Next story Economic and market briefing – comments on the day

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares