![]() The full show notes for this episode are available at. None may ultimately affect L&G, but it’s too soon to say.We wrap up Git from the Bottom Up by John Wiegley while Joe has a convenient excuse, Allen gets thrown under the bus, and Michael somehow made it worse. If “a material risk to the UK financial stability” – the Bank’s words – suddenly appears, there are usually consequences. More immediately, regulators will surely want to take a look at all things LDI. That risk, if it materialises in the form of pension funds switching out of LDI arrangements, will clearly be a slow burn. In short, the optimal collateral levels that L&G had been recommending to clients may be seen to have been too skimpy. Jefferies’ analysts earlier this week raised the idea that “the biggest risk for L&G is that this crisis has discredited the firm’s risk management abilities”. The nagging doubt, though, concerns the long-term impact of the LDI drama. Jolly good, and the accompanying healthy numbers on the group’s cash and capital position reinforced the message of resilience. L&G itself has no balance sheet exposure. The FTSE 100 insurer manages portfolios on behalf of pension fund clients – and it was some of those clients who had to post extra collateral to support LDI funds when gilt yields spiked before the Bank of England’s intervention last week. But, as the statement was at pains to say, its formal role is one of agent. L&G is the biggest player in the LDI market in the UK. ![]() All this stuff about pension funds and LDI, or liability-driven investment, is like water off a duck’s back for us.”Īs far it goes, it’s a fair stance. Legal & General’s trading update on Tuesday could be roughly summarised as: “We’re fine. Regulators need to take a look at all things LDI If negotiations with the power firms are to succeed, it needs to happen soon. It might be helpful if the new business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, spent less time talking about fracking, which may never happen, and more time on today’s pressing issue. But it is starting to look like the simplest model. One assumes the UK government, despite its reported rhetoric, would loathe to go down that route since it would represent another U-turn. The European Union, note, is streets ahead with its revenue cap, which is really a form of windfall tax. As long as the gas prices remain high, delay only benefits the generators. It ain’t straightforward.īut the underlying dynamic is that the government needs to get something in place. Another is that, logically, new contracts would have to be designed on a fuel-by-fuel, or even project-by-project, basis. Another is that “renewable obligations certificates” – the incentive mechanism – roll off over varying periods. One complication is that generators sell their output a year or more in advance, so their windfall profits have yet to arrive the former chancellor Rishi Sunak (remember him?) encountered the same issue when contemplating an extension to his North Sea windfall tax and gave up. Meanwhile, the FT reports that the government is threatening the relevant energy firms with a cap on their revenues unless they agree a voluntary deal. “Discussions are taking place, but not the hard yards of an actual negotiation,” says another. “Talks are stuck,” says one renewables industry source. The mood music was excellent.Īnd now? The tone is very different. The chief executive of Centrica, owner of a 20% stake in the UK’s nuclear fleet, declared he wanted his company to be the first to sign a new-style contract. ![]() A new energy supply taskforce was established within the business department to hammer down the details and seemed to get off to a flyer. New electricity supply contracts, it was argued, would make the guarantee more affordable for the public purse. The ambition became a firm policy on 8 September, when Liz Truss announced the government’s two-year “energy price guarantee” for households.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |