• 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

Carry on carrying…

0
  • by Jackie Shute
  • in Blogs · Jackie Shute · Recent Posts
  • — 3 Dec, 2012

Ok, so I know you treasury professionals out there may not be overly fond of commenting on articles that you have read (and perhaps even found interesting?) but I kick off this blog with a plea.  Please tell me, if you are an authority with both outstanding loans and a not insignificant level of investments, why are you holding investments?

I hope that with such an open and relatively straightforward question I will now be inundated with responses which I shall look forward to reading with great interest.

Why am I asking? Surely, having masqueraded as a treasury professional for the last 16 years, you may think I’d know the answer by now.  I think there was a time when I did indeed know the answer to this, but the problem is, the more I think about it, the less convinced I am of that reason.

If I asked myself this question 4 or more years ago, I probably would have replied that it’s as a result of having reserves, provisions and balances which are cash-backed.  Therefore, I needed to have the available cash to meet any payments due to be made from them – otherwise I may be forced out into the market to borrow.

I possibly would have elaborated further and talked about how my role was to manage both sides of the treasury coin: my debt portfolio and my investment portfolio.  My debt portfolio which, as it exists as a factor of the extent of past capital financing decisions, has a reasonably close relationship with my Capital Financing Requirement.  My investment portfolio therefore relates to the positive cash flow items on my balance sheet referred to above.

This approach was rarely questioned. The heady days of 2007 and 2008 in particular gifted LAs with returns on investments achieving rates well in excess of rates payable on borrowing. Happy days! What a great job was being done.  (Borrowing to on-lend? No way, I’m borrowing because my CFR says I “should” be)

So what has changed, why am I now doubting this rationale? What is making me question this apparent logic that seemed so obvious not that long ago?  A culmination of factors.

Firstly, credit events that highlighted the lack of immunity to credit events in the sector. There were real investment risks out there which had the ability to cause financial damage when they materialised.

Secondly, and very shortly after the first, the yield curve no longer justified the positions of having around £500m debt and around £250m of investments.  Long gone were the days of investments with a big figure 6, or 5 or even 2!  Within just a handful of MPC meetings, investments generating millions of pounds less interest receipts became a painful wake-up call, raising questions about why such large investment balances were held at all.  Crossing fingers and hoping for the return of a yield curve that suited became a much less convincing approach to treasury.

Thirdly, and perhaps most notably, I, like many others out there, started waking up to the true concepts of risk management.  Risk management was not something that was just said in the treasury code, the talk needed to be walked, it needed to come to life.

Tapping into expertise from other sectors, not previously available to local government meant I could actually see my treasury risks quantified.  This reinforced how little risk resided in my loans portfolio but demonstrated that investment risk was rife! I realised I wasn’t managing two separate portfolios, but in fact I was managing a position of net indebtedness.  I had the responsibility and the obligation to manage this net position in a low risk way and to keep my net interest costs as low as I could.

My CIPFA Treasury Management Advisory Group colleagues and I set about deriving the Risk Study to bring these concepts to the wider audience to help others acknowledge their own risk profiles.  The analysis clearly demonstrated that the biggest risk wasn’t arising from borrowing at unknown and possibly higher interest rates; as a sector we didn’t have enough conviction about the long term extent of our capital financing plans to suggest a huge financing need extending into the long term. The bigger risk to our net interest costs arose from investments. The higher the proportion of investments, the greater the risk.

Shouldn’t the level of external borrowing be more closely related to the net indebtedness, rather than being far in excess of this, resulting in the “excess” being lent out at dismal rates of return?  Just because we have always worked that way, does not mean it has to continue.  I don’t know when short term rates will rise again, but there is a huge risk that it won’t be for a very long time.  With budget restraints across the board, is the cost of carry an acceptable hit to the budget or can we do something different?  Let’s just really question the approach on whether we should carry on carrying…

Jackie Shute is the Co-founder of Public Sector Live

Share

You may also like...

  • Spending review: A lift from grant funding, rising gilt prices and inflation worries 28th Oct, 2021
  • Mandatory Prudential Code ‘no substitute’ for effective balance sheet management 26th Aug, 2021
  • Room151 teams up with Arlingclose to explore Prudential and Treasury Codes in webcast special 27th Sep, 2021
  • How to be net zero by 2030 23rd Feb, 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 5 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 5 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 Money rates, the ECB, Australia and China
  • Next story Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and the OBR

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.OK