• 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

Claire Morris: Sense needed in the debate on the prudential framework and investment code

0
  • by Guest
  • in Resources · Technical · Treasury
  • — 11 Dec, 2017

Concerns are emerging over the consultation on the prudential framework, the investment code and MRP. Claire Morris argues implementation should be deffered until 2019-20 to enable a proper review of the proposals.

The consultation of the prudential framework on capital finance has been out a couple of weeks now so most of us have probably read it, maybe attended a conference where someone spoke about it and are starting to get to grips with the proposals or, more importantly, the impact of the proposals on our budgets and medium term financial plans.

I have not come across many who fundamentally disagree with the general principles of what DCLG are trying to achieve; openness, transparency, governance and accountability are the bedrock of what we do.

I also haven’t met many in our profession who would not say that the prime purpose of local authorities is to deliver statutory services and exercise stewardship of public funds.

That said, there are a number of things about this consultation that make me think the proposals are a rushed, knee-jerk reaction to lobbying from the commercial property sector without government quite understanding the situation.

Discouraging

Government says that it does not want to discourage local authorities from investing to deliver local economic regeneration; I also presume that they don’t want  authorities to stop being innovative in service delivery either, but I fear that these proposals, as they stand, will do exactly that. So, what is wrong with the consultation?

Firstly, the concern that some local authorities have become overly dependent on commercial income as a source for delivering statutory services. Is the government having a laugh? So, central government completely withdraws the revenue support grant (e.g., Guildford has no RSG from 1st April 2018), begins reducing our business rates income through an “additional tariff” (or introduces a negative grant, if you see it that way, a trajectory that I can only assume will continue) and then complains we are becoming too reliant on locally raised commercial revenue? The hypocrisy is outstanding.

I appreciate that commercial activity brings risks and that values, and therefore income, go up as well as down, but government grant seems to have only gone down and we do not appear to have any hope of it going back up. I would argue that the biggest risk to Guildford’s budget is further changes to the business rates retention scheme and possible funding reduction following the fair funding review implementation in 2020.

The important thing is that councils should understand the risks of commercial activity and have appropriate governance and monitoring arrangements around commercial activity and mitigation and exit strategies in place.

Secondly, I feel that the commentary around capacity, skills and culture is somewhat offensive. How many chief financial officers do not have sufficient knowledge and expertise to take sensible decisions? Do they really think that we just completely rely on our treasury management accountants and advisers to make investment and borrowing decisions?

Contradictory

Thirdly, the changes proposed regarding MRP are contradictory. The key principle that provision for borrowing should be made over a period bearing some relation to that over which the asset continues to provide service is widely accepted.

At Guildford, we have always taken care to align the useful life of assets for depreciation purposes with that used for the calculation of MRP. The useful life of individual other land and buildings is provided to us as part of the annual valuation we complete. The useful lives are therefore assessed by a RICS qualified valuer; in Guildford’s case this is the government’s own District Valuation Service.

I cannot therefore fathom out why it is necessary to state maximum lives for each category of asset within the MRP guidance, especially when I think the proposed maximum useful lives bear little correspondence to the valuation of individual assets.

For example, freehold land for depreciation is deemed to have an infinite asset life, so it could be argued that it should not be subject to MRP, but that would not be prudent. In our asset portfolio, we have pieces of land let out for telecommunications purposes and new surface car parks, which are judged by the valuer to have remaining asset lives of between 60 to 79 years in our last valuation. Similarly, some of our other land and buildings, particularly residential houses, are deemed by the valuer to have asset lives in excess of 40 years.

Investment property is not depreciated under accounting practice as it is valued at fair value on the balance sheet and revalued annually, gains or losses on revaluation are recognised through the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Account.

Again, this could be an argument for not charging MRP as the financing cost is highly likely to be recovered on disposal. However, many local authorities will have no plan to dispose of the assets, as they are held for income purposes.

At Guildford, we match the asset life for MRP on investment property to that which we use on other land and buildings. However, as investment property is revalued every year, surely it wouldn’t be too hard for councils to ask the valuer to assess the remaining useful economic life as part of that revaluation and then charge MRP accordingly over that life?

So, instead of arbitrary maximum lives, surely the better approach would be to stipulate that the useful economic life of an asset for both MRP and depreciation (if relevant) should be based on the professional opinion of an independent valuer? That way, authorities will have solid evidence to support their judgements to auditors.

Sense

On the acquisition of share or loan capital, the maximum asset life is proposed as 20 years. Yet loans for capital expenditure by third parties and expenditure on assets for use by others are recommended to have an asset life equal to the useful economic life of the underlying asset.

In the case of acquiring share or loan capital for property based companies, why not apply the useful life of the underlying assets? Those councils that have housing companies, regeneration xompanies, energy companies or commercial property companies may possibly find this is the proposal that may have the biggest impact.

In my own case, Guildford has a housing company, the core reasons for us setting it up links to our housing strategy and trying to meet identified housing needs in our borough. The fact that it should generate a relatively modest income stream for the council’s general fund was an added benefit.

The company invests the equity and loan capital provided by the council in housing. Thus, it makes prudent sense to me to charge MRP on the capital expenditure we have invested as equity in the company, over the life of the underlying assets of the company (i.e., the residential property).

If we have to change MRP on the equity that the council has invested over 20 years then the business plan of the company is highly likely to become unaffordable for the council and the idea of meeting housing need in the borough can be forgotten.

Should the implementation be deferred until 2019-20? Yes, absolutely in my view, because we are less than two months away from setting our 2018-19 budget and some sense needs to be brought back in to the debate.

Claire Morris is head of financial services and chief financial officer, guildford borough council

Share

You may also like...

  • Local authority accounts: embrace the complexity 28th Mar, 2022
  • Impact Awards: The winners are revealed 1st Jul, 2021
  • Richard Harbord: September accounts sign-off a ‘fantasy’ at many councils 10th May, 2021
  • Making a clean, green future a reality 15th Dec, 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 13 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 22 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 News Roundup: Race to beat MiFID II deadline, Worcestershire’s real return investment, Newham’s Olympic stadium write-off, social services
  • Next story Greenpiece: The birth of green bonds

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares