• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Conference
  • Events Calendar
  • Webcast151
  • MOTB
  • Log In
  • Register

Room 151

  • 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

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...

  • Councils could face ‘additional’ intervention if borrowing rates continue Councils could face ‘additional’ intervention if borrowing rates continue 28 Mar, 2018
  • Treasurers’ survey reveals lending ‘blacklist’ Treasurers’ survey reveals lending ‘blacklist’ 8 Sep, 2016
  • Bank downgrades likely, says S&P report Bank downgrades likely, says S&P report 21 Aug, 2014
  • Bonds agency turns to councils for help on first issue Bonds agency turns to councils for help on first issue 28 Mar, 2019

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 2 days ago

    All three days of #LATIF & FDs' Summit are available on our webcast channel gotostage.com/channel/room151

    Room151 4 days ago

    FDs’ Summit experts defend councils as MPs label property investment ‘risky’: As Room151’s FDs’ Summit conference explores local government’s investment in commercial property MPs once again lable it a “significant risk to government”. Once again MPs… dlvr.it/Rr7lZx pic.twitter.com/jPvcZjDAS4

    Room151 5 days ago

    Global macro outlook: Virus versus vaccine: Sponsored article: Salman Ahmed argues monetary policy, a global vaccine rollout and fiscal stimulus are likely to put “upward pressure” on bond yields. Much like the latter half of 2020,[...] dlvr.it/Rr60nt pic.twitter.com/qsymBWmKmV

    Room151 6 days ago

    ‘Chasing yield’ not the best strategy as negative rates loom: Recent speculation that the UK may be heading toward negative interest rates prompts questions for treasury officers managing local authority funds at LATIF. Speculation is rife that the UK… dlvr.it/Rr3Mrj pic.twitter.com/wtxYAB20PO

    Room151 1 week ago

    Will new public procurement rules offer the best commercial results?: The government has issued a green paper on reforming procurement rules. Helen Randall and Rebecca Rees examine the proposals and argue they may not go far enough. The Cabinet… dlvr.it/Rqtw6T pic.twitter.com/9GiVTkL08U

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    The vaccine may help settle cash flows but inflation remains a risk: Sponsored article: Lauren Sewell examines the prospects for long-term borrowing as Brexit settles and vaccines are deployed against Covid-19. On the 9th October 2019 Whitehall sent… dlvr.it/RqZXCr pic.twitter.com/PzgOZOGQ0k

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    ESG in liquidity: Sponsored article: Gavin Haywood looks at the integration of ESG in Federated Hermes’ money market funds. Federated Hermes has over 300 public sector clients invested in our AAA rated money[...] dlvr.it/RqZX5f pic.twitter.com/E87sBXsay8

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    New realities of investing cash and liquidity: “What to do now?”: Sponsored article: Brian Buck looks at the “unique challenge” for cash management strategies. As investors assess the ongoing impact of the pandemic on their business, levels of cash and… dlvr.it/RqVbk9 pic.twitter.com/ZElVASmEUV

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Extra finance promised by the government receives a broad welcome: Sponsored article: The financial pressures facing local authorities this year continue to pose challenges for council treasurers. While the launch of the UK’s Covid-19 vaccination… dlvr.it/RqTzTF pic.twitter.com/HCjH0pyHR5

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    A savvy approach to managing your cash: Sponsored article: Caroline Hedges examines the need for active cash management to achieve a higher than average return. Last year saw the already mountainous pile of negative-yielding debt around the[...] dlvr.it/RqTzMK pic.twitter.com/uP0RQYTJLt

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Putting alternatives at the heart of multi-asset portfolios: Sponsored article: Nick Edwardson looks at the assets that provide the “most attractive opportunities”. We believe that asset allocation is the primary driver of investment returns and that the… dlvr.it/RqQ2Qt pic.twitter.com/WLBzvRRRUQ

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Thriving in the pandemic: Avoiding the stragglers: Sponsored article: George Crowdy looks at the sectors providing opportunities for sustainable investment. Throughout much of 2020, we talked about why sustainable investing has thrived in the pandemic,… dlvr.it/RqQ2NQ pic.twitter.com/dxiPWKFsPl

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    The development of CCLA’s mental health benchmark: Sponsored article: Amy Browne examines the importance of investing in mental health in the workplace. We are living through a public health emergency in more ways than one. Physical health[...] dlvr.it/RqQ2Jx pic.twitter.com/o6yRSCX3oF

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Brexit: What the EU trade deal means for the UK economy: Sponsored article: Hetal Mehta looks at the impact of Brexit on economic prospects. Four and a half years after voting to leave the EU, on Christmas Eve the UK finally[...] dlvr.it/RqLBDt pic.twitter.com/No62srfE8h

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Cash dethroned: The quest for liquid yield: Sponsored article: Peter Hunt and George Carne ask how treasury departments can balance the need for yield and liquidity. The massive stimulus and waves of liquidity provided by central banks[...] dlvr.it/RqLBDj pic.twitter.com/05g6Zhu1kU

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Richard Harbord: Delayed “capital determinations” make section 25 opinions a new crunch point: The severe pressure on local government budgets now means section 151 officers confront a tricky call on  whether they can make a judgement on the robustness… dlvr.it/RqLBDV pic.twitter.com/vTAbDKFzkI

    Room151 1 month ago

    PWLB Consultation: Analysis straight from Dickens: Helen Radall and Paul McDermott present a legal examination of the new PWLB borrowing rules as Charles Dickens might have imagined it. Free and easy PWLB (“Marley” to his friends)[...] dlvr.it/RnmwLq pic.twitter.com/yFxcPrQqEG

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Blogs
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • LGPSi
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Recent Posts
    • Resources
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • 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 2021 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

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