• 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

Security, liquidity & yield – in that order?

0
  • by Jackie Shute
  • in Blogs · Jackie Shute · Treasury
  • — 24 Sep, 2012

Without question, security should be the prime consideration of any treasury management investments strategy – perhaps how we ascertain that remains something of a debate but nonetheless it should be the number one consideration.

Then what about liquidity?  Clearly the risk that cash will not be available when it is needed should be actively considered – but how real is this risk in the world of local authorities?  Hands up any treasurers out there who have even come close to not being able to pay their creditors or staff (as a result of not having the cash, rather than as a result of an IT problem!).

Let us start by taking a look for a moment at our cousins in the world of corporate treasury – if cash flow is not planned appropriately and funding is not secured, the payment of creditors may be genuinely at risk – the management of working capital and accurate cash flow projections, as well as securing reliable funding sources, is pivotal.  The downside risk to the corporate treasurer in leaving liquidity unmanaged is the possibility of the company not surviving.  Therefore, making deposits or investing for periods that don’t match your cash flow expectations really can jeopardise the business objectives.

However, back in the world of the local authority, does it really have the same significance?  The fact is, most local authorities have cash, liquid cash and lots of it.  But even those that don’t retain large investment balances have access to short-term borrowings through the money markets, PWLB or bank overdrafts in the event of unforeseen payments.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not encouraging complacency about cash flow management – in fact quite the reverse.

For the last couple of months I have had the enviable pleasure of sifting through Treasury Risk Study submissions from around 170 authorities across England and Wales; an eye opening experience without a doubt.  Included in those submissions were £15bn of investments.

For some authorities, 100% of their deposits were in liquid instruments such as call accounts or money market funds.  Overall 35% of the universe of deposits were invested this way.  Whilst a handful of outlying authorities were not afraid to push duration out, at the other end of the spectrum, one or two had as much as £250m in instant liquidity.

So the question worth asking is whether this extent of liquidity is required to manage liquidity risk?  Or is there excessive erring on the side of caution?  Perhaps there are two main reasons why duration is kept so short: the first, because it’s a simple way of reducing credit risk, and the second because we lack confidence in our cash flow forecasts and are therefore uncertain about when payments may actually be expected.

Whilst duration is indeed a factor that can assist with managing credit risk, using credit concerns to determine duration will have unintended consequences.  I would suggest that credit risk depends as much on the quality of counterparty than it does on the duration of the deposit – it is therefore possible to have relatively low credit risk whilst having a slightly longer duration.  More robust means of assessing credit, as opposed to time limits being arbitrarily placed on institutions, is certainly achievable. If implemented then duration can really become the tool that it should be – to aid liquidity exposures (more on credit in my next blog).

The upward sloping yield curve, which may or may not be realised in the fullness of time, provides good opportunities for higher returns for well-informed  practitioners to move out the curve a little – and consequently providing more certainty to their revenue budget.

In conclusion, I therefore feel that too much emphasis is given to liquidity risk within investment strategies; I do not believe that it presents as significant a risk as that posed by interest rate volatility.  The familiar mantra of SLY presents an element of distraction to local authority treasurers and suggests the liquidity concerns are equivalent to those in the corporate sector which, while the money markets still have bodies willing to lend to the sector and the PWLB retains its position as lender of last resort, can never be considered comparable.  But until better ways of assessing credit risk are developed, and cash flow forecasts can provide the confidence in lending a proportion of balances for longer, I fear that interest rate risk will remain dominant and returns will suffer putting undue pressure on already stretched revenue budgets.

So back to the unenviable task of continuing to work through more than 160 submissions for this years’ Treasury Risk Study. Actually, it might be more truthful to say “is it weird that I’m enjoying this so much?!”. Having been through two previous studies, it’s interesting to see how your strategies are evolving in such a varied way. For those of you who’ve booked surgeries at the forthcoming workshops, I look forward to your views on the liquidity dilemma!

Jackie Shute is the Co-founder of Public Sector Live

Share

You may also like...

  • LGPS weighs up alternatives 26th Oct, 2021
  • Local government: from funding famine to balanced diet 4th Apr, 2022
  • Why build to rent has remained resilient despite Covid-19 28th Apr, 2021
  • ‘Better governance and greater transparency’ could help improve financial decision making 25th Feb, 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 10 hours ago

    Liverpool faces further government intervention as commissioners find ‘whole-council failure’: The levelling up secretary has announced that he is “minded to” expand intervention at Liverpool City Council by transferring the authority’s financial… dlvr.it/SWvgGc pic.twitter.com/cB7YeHZ9lE

    Room151 1 day 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 2 days 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 3 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 3 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

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Treasury Think Tank
  • Next story Economic and market briefing: the UK in focus

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares