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

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • London CIV appoints Dean Bowden as CEO

    August 18, 2022

  • Coventry secures over £115m of funding to decarbonise transport system

    August 18, 2022

  • Bexley Pension Fund appoints responsible investment consultant

    August 17, 2022

  • Leeds’ £120m levelling up bids offers ‘transformational change’

    August 16, 2022

  • Social care workforce crisis ‘requires government intervention’

    August 15, 2022

  • Consultation opens on future of IFRS 9 statutory override

    August 12, 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

Regulatory change

0
  • by David Green
  • in Blogs · David Green · Recent Posts
  • — 10 Feb, 2012

This week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) published a summary of the responses to last year’s consultation on changes to the capital finance system in England, and confirmed that it intends to go ahead with all the proposals.  The two main changes relate to securitisation and corporate bonds.

Securitisation is the process by which future income streams can be sold to an investor in exchange for an upfront lump sum.  It is therefore similar to borrowing, although giving up the rights to future income is not quite the same as taking on an obligation to make future payments.  CLG is obviously worried about local authorities using their new found freedoms under the general power of competence to indulge in some financial engineering.  After all, the Greek government famously securitised its airport fees and lottery sales with Goldman Sachs in 2001, using the proceeds to hide its growing national debt and make it eligible to join the euro.  Any treasurers out there fancy selling the next five years’ council tax income to receive a lump sum now?  Probably not.  But how about selling future (variable) rents on a business park in exchange for a fixed sum upfront that can be used to finance the development in the first place?  That sounds a little more likely.  .

CLG’s solution is to classify any such lump sum as a capital receipt, which sounds reasonable, so that it can only be used for capital expenditure (such as developing the above business park) or repaying debt (like Greece, but more transparent). CLG will also legislate to treat the sum as a “credit arrangement” to bring it within the prudential framework, similar to the way that finance leases are counted as debt.  Quite how a single sum of money can be both a capital receipt (income) and a credit arrangement (debt) raises several questions.  Can the capital receipt be used to repay the debt?  Do you show it as a liability or as a reserve on the balance sheet?  I raised these questions in the consultation process, and the official response states that queries about legal and accounting issues will be dealt with in the informal commentary to be issued later.  That should be fun to read!

The other main change will allow English local authorities to invest in corporate bonds without classing them as capital expenditure, a long-standing regulation which previously made it difficult to invest without banning it outright.  Unusually, this is one area of local government legislation where England is behind Wales − authorities in the Principality have been able to buy corporate bonds without restrictions since 2004.

This will open up three broad avenues of investment, with different levels of credit risk.  Firstly there are a number of government guaranteed bonds on the market issued by companies such as Network Rail and Royal Bank of Scotland that pay a slightly higher return that gilts for next to no additional risk.  There was no reason for local authorities to ever have been restricted on buying these − they happen to be corporate bonds in name only.  Bonds issued though companies but guaranteed by local authorities, like the GLA’s recent issue, are a similar example.

Secondly there is the more traditional high grade corporate bond.  Many companies with AA credit ratings are arguably safer than many of the banks these days.  Non-financial corporates aren’t exposed to the risk that all their funding will disappear in a short period of time in a bank run, and many stockpile cash in advance to pay bonds as they mature.  A diversified pool of 10 or 20 fairly short dated high grade corporate bonds would be a decent addition to an otherwise bank-centred investment portfolio.

Going further down the risk spectrum, we come to the euphemistically named “high yield” bonds (sounds nicer than “low grade”, don’t you think?).  Authorities looking for increased returns in these difficult times may be tempted down this route, but this is where diversification really becomes key, with pooled funds being the only realistic solution.  Even then, the risk of substantial capital losses remains, so authorities with average risk appetites will be best sticking to the higher quality categories instead.

David Green is the Head of Sterling Consultancy Services, a provider of treasury management advice to local authorities and other not for profit organisations.  This is the writer’s personal opinion and does not constitute investment advice.  It should not be relied upon when making investment decisions.

Share

You may also like...

  • ‘Coffee can portfolio’: Investing with Chinese characteristics 15th Jul, 2021
  • Rate rise represents ‘fastest increase in borrowing costs in 25 years’ 9th May, 2022
  • Why should LGPS be concerned about rising inflation? 8th Apr, 2021
  • Net zero: Opportunities ahead for LGPS but it will require ‘honesty’ and ‘sophistication’ 27th Oct, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • London CIV appoints Dean Bowden as CEO
    • Coventry secures over £115m of funding to decarbonise transport system
    • Bexley Pension Fund appoints responsible investment consultant
    • Leeds’ £120m levelling up bids offers ‘transformational change’
    • Social care workforce crisis ‘requires government intervention’
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 15 hours ago

    Recovery position: withholding tax and the LGPS: Partner Content: Paul Sprenger from WTax talks to Room151 about how Local Government Pension Scheme funds could be missing out on millions of pounds of withholding tax recovery opportunities.… dlvr.it/SWsTfQ pic.twitter.com/z6aVMcaqHe

    Room151 24 hours ago

    Treasurer societies favour permanent extension to IFRS 9 statutory override: Two treasurer society presidents have indicated their preference for the current five-year IFRS 9 statutory override to be made permanent following the government’s latest… dlvr.it/SWr3G4 pic.twitter.com/MGf9M5zC8Q

    Room151 2 days ago

    Luton Borough Council faces ‘grave’ £10m overspend: Luton Borough Council faces a £10m overspend in its 2022/23 budget which poses a “serious risk” to the authority’s financial sustainability. A report by Dev Gopal, director of finance, revenues[...] dlvr.it/SWmynD pic.twitter.com/ETDd7sQA48

    Room151 2 days ago

    Luton Borough Council faces ‘grave’ £10m overspend: Luton Borough Council faces a £10m overspend in its 2022/23 budget which poses a “serious risk” to the authority’s financial sustainability. room151.co.uk/funding/luton-… pic.twitter.com/XvyTZckW6m

    Room151 1 week ago

    LATIF/FDs’ Summit ‘on course to be biggest yet’: Room151’s flagship event – the Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) and FDs’ Summit – is on course to be the biggest yet, with more than 200 delegates expected. Combining[...] dlvr.it/SWSDrL pic.twitter.com/f8FXzcAdWB

    Room151 1 week ago

    ‘Local government treated worse than any other part of public sector’: Clive Betts, chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, talks to Mike Thatcher about lack of progress on levelling up, pork-barrel politics and why local government… dlvr.it/SWRk1L pic.twitter.com/Jpw0BsOsy3

    Room151 1 week ago

    Which LGPS pools and funds are attending the LGPS Investment Forum on Nov 2 & the LGPS Private Markets Forum on Nov 1st? Answer here: lnkd.in/eDHU8tuy pic.twitter.com/D3gd63Rh7F

    Room151 1 week ago

    LGPS and levelling up: nothing to fear but fear itself: There have been a number of objections to government plans for LGPS funds to invest 5% of their assets in local projects. But George Graham says these objections can be[...] dlvr.it/SWL7vt pic.twitter.com/ebwBEkZTy4

    Room151 1 week ago

    George Graham @SYpensions @bordertocoast channels his inner FDR in a call for local government pension funds to avoid the fear factor and embrace levelling up #LGPS #localgov room151.co.uk/local-governme…

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Changes to rules on capital receipts raise wider questions: Stephen Kitching argues that DLUHC’s latest rule changes are part of a series following on from revisions to MRP guidance and the purchase of commercial property. He questions whether… dlvr.it/SWGqKC pic.twitter.com/Ycr5hWZDPk

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story LAPF Strategic Investment Forum Presentations – Feb 9th
  • Next story Euroland update part 1:Spain in crisis

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares