Ads 468x60px

About Me


Darren Winters is a self made investment multi-millionaire and successful entrepreneur. Amongst
his many businesses he owns the number 1 investment training company in the UK and Europe.
This company provides training courses in stock market, forex and property investing and since
the year 2000 has successfully trained over 250,000 people.


Showing posts with label london. Show all posts
Showing posts with label london. Show all posts

Monday, 21 July 2014

British Pay

The stagnation of British pay, and for that matter pretty much most workers pay in developed capitalist economies is concerning. So much so, that the falling real incomes, after factoring in inflation, and the inevitable deteriorating living standards of millions of workers is likely become one of the main electoral issues during Britain’s forthcoming general elections next year. But while Labor politicians will probably stand on their soapbox professing to have a solution to the plight of a growing army of working poor, the problem may be far too entrenched for any erudite politician to solve. 

Indeed, the falling real incomes for households on middle to low income, which amounts to over a third of the nation’s population, is more than just a passing storm, or a shift from one economic paradigm to another, but in the words of Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, “a long-term, “secular” stagnation of the developed capitalist economies.”

The slowing growth of British wages had started well before the financial crisis of 2008. A recent think tank report, titled “Growth without Gains,” revealed that the general population’s living standards had deteriorated long before the onset of the previous recession. The report showed that despite Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 11 percent between 2003 and 2008. Median wages were stagnant and per capita disposable income fell at the household level in every region outside London. Moreover, there has been a rapid shift in the way income has been distributed from wages to profits. Just 12p of every £1 created by the UK economy finds its way to the wages of workers in the bottom half of the earnings distribution, a drop of one quarter over the past 30 years, according to the report. 

While, this helps explain income inequality there are other fundamental reasons at play which could explain the slow growth of pay of workers in the low-middle income bracket. They are as follows; Globalization. While there are many upsides to globalization and free trade, such as competitively priced goods and fewer wars as nations seek to trade rather than wage wars on each other, there have also been some downsides. Without doubt, free trade has undermined the real wages of blue collar workers, countless examples can be cited of workshops being setup in low wage regions, thereby displacing factory, process workers in the UK, or forcing them to accept lower wages. Furthermore, there is growing evidence of white collar incomes being adversely affected by increasing competition from a new generation of young educated workers in developing nations. For example, Deutsche Bank cost-cutting in New York and London has been brutal in recent years. But the bank has increased its employee head count in India to 6,000 and has recently employed 125 analysts in Mumbai.

Capital’s obsession with returning greater shareholder value at the expense of rewards from ordinary workers has also contributed to lower pay rises for medium to low income workers.

Despite the fact that Technology has raised productivity in every sector it has also replaced the tasks undertaken by many other low skilled workers. Certainly, we are living in times when the digital technological revolution is evolving beyond that of the last decade. The fusion of nanotechnology, information technology and mechanics is propelling robotics to new heights. Drones are becoming more sophisticated, resulting in pilotless aircraft, which are currently being deployed by the military for surveillance and aerial combat missions. So drones can now do the job of piloted military jet at a fraction of the cost, which logically means less demand for pilots. On the civilian front, Amazon is currently requesting permission from the authorities to use drones for parcel deliveries and robots will soon probably replace people in their dispatch warehouses. Put simply, robots do the work more efficiently than humans, they are cheaper, they work 24/7 and they don’t require a pay rise. Then there is the autonomous vehicle, driverless vehicle, which is now a technical reality, apparently this will mean no more human error road accidents, which could cut the road mortality rate and insurance premiums. But it also means putting the professional driver out of business. Technology is revolutionizing education; predictions are that within next few decades half the universities won’t exist. Workers will require education and skills more than ever in the brave new world, but they will acquire it online, at a fraction of the cost. This could mean less work, or lower paid work for education workers.

So labor’s bargaining power will continue to erode, as the true supply of labor exceeds its demand, thereby keeping wages low.

Perhaps we are moving towards what Jeremy Rifkin describes in his book, “The zero marginal cost society,” like Marx, Rifkin thinks capitalism will consume itself. The argument runs something like this: increasingly intelligent machines will generate products at nearly zero marginal cost—in other words; the cost of producing each additional unit falls to essentially nothing. And when that happens, everything becomes free, profits disappear and… capitalism eats itself. 

What this could imply is dwindling income for governments, as their tax revenue continues to shrink. Less public finance means eroding public services in health, education and defense. So a gentle slow march into poverty for millions.

But people are resourceful and when they start realizing that the market economy is declining, along with the public sector there is likely to be a growth in the third sector, voluntary and community based jobs and self-employment. The downside is that this type of employment often pays less. 

With regards to trading, the world’s most sophisticated form of gambling, as a means of escaping the sinking ship; it could be for those who have a strong constitution, a healthy sense of cynicism, able to manage risk, numerate, literate analytical and cunning. But you need to keep in mind that trading is a zero sum game with more losers than winners and the house always wins. Mrs. Jones might be best suited to baking cakes for the local raffle. However, a trader’s academy for people who believe they already have the material to work with might be a winner.



Wednesday, 21 May 2014

Pfizer - Astrazeneca - The failed Takeover



The failed AstraZeneca takeover affair may be a stark reminder that there are just a few players who actually influence the outcome of a mammoth Takeover bid involving corporate titans.   They are the board directors, the shareholders (fund managers and institutional investors) and the suited and booted brigade in Whitehall, the government.  These players, the stakeholders in the business, more often than not have interests which conflict. The shareholders want shareholder value and a tidy return on their investment; a non-executive board may have their own goals of self-enrichment to the detriment of the shareholders. On the other hand, the government may view the entity as a tax revenue cow. Moreover, if the business contains valuable intellectual property, patents and provides local jobs the government is unlikely to rubber stamp it being taken over by a foreign rival, on the grounds of national interest.



So with all this in mind it probably came as no surprise that when Pfizer, US pharmaceutical giant, upped its failed bid to approximately 93 USD a share for its British rival AstraZeneca, it has created a political hot potato. Pfizer’s latest failed attempted to take over its British rival has valued AstraZeneca at $116 billion USD, which would be 19 times its projected 2015 earnings. Had the bid succeeded it would have created the world’s largest pharmaceutical company. But Pfizer was not prepared to put more money on the table.  AstraZeneca’s board remains adamant that the company is worth more and rejected the bid on the grounds that Pfizer’s latest offer still undervalued the pipeline of drugs that the company owns, particularly in the field of cancer medications. Well, this may be a vote of confidence for AstraZeneca’s potential future earnings, but the immediate effect was to send the share price tumbling 12 percent.  

Predictably, the shareholders are up in arms, lamenting about the profits they could have bagged. Investment management firm Schroders, which has a 2% stake in AstraZeneca and one of the pharmaceutical company's 20 largest investors, said it was disappointed with the failure of both companies to hold constructive talks.  The fund manager for Schroders added that he "would encourage the AstraZeneca management to recommence their engagement with Pfizer and subsequently their shareholders" and he was critical about AstraZeneca’s board’s decision to rapidly reject Pfizer’s latest offer.
Similar frustrations was also echoed by both Axa Investment Managers and Jupiter Investment Management, which represented AstraZeneca’ s other large shareholders. One top share holder complained, saying, “"we do not think the Astra management have done a good job on behalf of our shareholders," according to a recent report in Reuters.




Nevertheless, the British Government thinks otherwise on the AstraZeneca affair. Indeed, already UK ministers have begun exploratory talks with EU officials over amending the terms of the British government’s public interest test, which currently enables ministers to block Takeovers where there are concerns over national security, media impartiality or competition. Indeed, as I write this piece Minsters are currently reviewing whether to extend the test to ongoing investment in research and design as grounds on which the government could choke off a takeover.


But there may be more than meets the eye to Pfizer’s intended takeover of AstraZeneca. In other words, the big story here may be more than just a huge US pharmaceutical striving for global domination through the acquisition of a foreign rival.  After all, Pfizer has a multibillion dollar cache, so why isn’t it using this hot money to grow its business organically, instead of opting for growth through acquisition?  Perhaps tax engineering is playing a role in Pfizer’s foreign acquisition ambitions.  Indeed, the UK’s relatively lower tax rates compared with those across the pond maybe behind the acquisition. So financial engineers, these days, are burning the midnight candle scheming ways of inventing paper wealth by changing a company’s domicile to a lower tax regime. Take for example, Apple, it has a cache of approximately 150 billion USD, of
 which 130 billion USD is held in tax havens.
Repatriating the cash would result in a tax liability of 35 percent. “To repatriate our foreign cash under current U.S. tax law, we would incur significant cash tax consequences and we don't believe this would be in the best interest of our shareholders,” said Apple’s chief financial officer.
Likewise, if Pfizer's acquisition had been successful and it had moved its head office to the UK, analysts estimate the combined company's tax rate would have fallen to 23% from Pfizer's current 27%, a sizable amount when billions of USDs are involved.


Maybe all this is making Britain’s prized companies vulnerable to takeovers from across the pond. The climate seems ideal for it, the tax disparities between the UK and the US and moreover the availability of cheap money from the Federal Reserve who maybe even aiding and abetting it.   

What next for Pfizer?  Well, they could bypass AstraZeneca's board and go directly to the shareholders, thereby mounting a hostile bid. Alternatively, Pfizer could use its large cache to mount another bid for another pharmaceutical company, but the potential target company is likely to be outside the US for tax reasons.
For AstraZeneca, the pressure is now on for the board to materialize the profits from their drugs in the pipeline and prove to their shareholders that the company is worth more than 19 times project earning in 2015. Shareholders will be impatient to see the benefits of turning down short term profits for long term gains.
The road ahead looks interesting, after all, everyone has their price and even big money can sway a government.  For private investors there are opportunities in this market if they can spot potential targets, buy into them, sit tight, wait for a predator and then just ride the money wave. 

Darren Winters

Friday, 16 May 2014

The UK Housing Market - where is it going?


Owning your home is something of a British obsession. It is not just somewhere to live (though that's important), it's also the biggest investment most people make in their lifetimes. And if you already own one you're fortunate - the prices seem to be going nowhere but up.

Last month, figures from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors suggest that on average we can expect a 6% rise in prices for the next five years. In the last year alone we've seen a 17% rise in London prices, arguably driven by an influx of wealthy foreigners who see London as a good investment, and the ability of London as a centre of economic growth to attract ever more people. But the price rise in London tends to distort the overall pattern, and if we remove London from the equation we get a national price rise in the last year of 5.8%.

The Office for National Statistics has produced a chart showing price changes expressed as percentages. You can see below that we had a substantial drop into negative figures with the financial crash in 2008, and by contrast now we're seeing a steep upward movement.

Figure 1: Annual house price rates of change, UK all dwellings from January 2004 to February 2014

(12 month percentage change)


The ONS puts the average UK house price at £250,000, while Nationwide have it lower at around £175,000. The Land Registry has it lower again at £165,000. This variability is down to the way the organisations calculate the figures, Nationwide using its own mortgage lending data, while the ONS uses data from a number of lenders, and makes certain adjustments. The Land Registry uses property ownership registration data. It all leads to an £85,000 difference between lowest and highest figures, which tends to confuse the issue.

London of course leads the pack, with the average house price now around £458,000. And if things move as predicted that will be £567,000 by 2020. 

So what's driving this resurgence? Low interest rates are a factor, as is the Help to Buy Mortgage guarantee scheme.  Then there's the funding for lending scheme, which was launched by the government in conjunction with the Bank of England in 2012. Its purpose was to provide cheap money to banks and building societies, thereby encouraging them to increase mortgage lending. This seems to have worked too well, as it was withdrawn in November 2013, supposedly to cool the market down. Another significant factor is the lack of new housing being built. This is a problem stretching back many years, and it seems the political will to address it has been woefully lacking. So we've had a long period where demand exceeds supply.

This seemingly relentless increase in prices creates issues of affordability, especially if you're a first time buyer. If we use a simple example to demonstrate the problem: - let's assume you want to buy an averagely priced London house at £468,000. You actually have a deposit of £40,000, and your net income per month is £2,500. At a mortgage term of 25 years and an interest rate of 4.75% you're only looking at a monthly repayment of £2,440! Which is 97% of your monthly income. Walk in the park then. This example may be extreme, but for younger people living in London (many of whom won't have a £40,000 deposit), it effectively excludes them from home ownership.

Intiatives (as mentioned above) have been launched to address the problem. The most significant one from the buyer's point of view is the Help to Buy scheme. This comes in two flavours. The first is an equity loan. This allows a prospective buyer with a 5% deposit to take a government loan for up to 20% of the price of the house. That loan is fee free for five years, then you will be charged an annual fee of 1.75%. With this arrangement in place you can then apply for a mortgage up to 75% of the property's value. Flavour two is the mortgage guarantee option. Again, you need 5% deposit, but this time the government guarantees the mortgage with the lender, so if you default they'll get their money back. Both these options are open to first time buyers and those moving home, on a property with a value up to £600,000.

There's no doubt that this scheme has made it possible for people to get on the housing ladder. But along with the funding for lending scheme it has been criticised in some quarters for stoking up the housing market.

The crazy multiples of income that were on offer before the last recession in 2007/8 (up to 6 times salary in some cases) are no longer the norm, though some lenders still offer them. And although income multiples are still a factor, as a result of the recent Mortgage Market Review lenders are moving towards pure 'affordability' as a criterion. This means that during your mortgage application your finances will come under close scrutiny, a kind of 'stress test' for consumers. This is an effort to curb the tendency of borrowers to overextend themselves when they had the opportunity pre-2007. Interest rates are currently at a historic low, but when they go up, as they inevitably will, your lender wants to be confident about your ability to keep repaying the loan. For many people this kind of scrutiny will make it yet harder to get a mortgage.

So the alternative for those young people priced out of the market is either to rent or stay at home with Mum and Dad. The stay at home generation aren't doing it by choice, they have the issue of first getting a decent paying job, which is proving problematic for many well qualified young people, the jobs just aren't there. And assuming they are working, the average rent for a one bedroom flat in London is £1200 a month. Admittedly that figure is only around half that outside the capital, but it's still a significant slice of a salary. And rents are only predicted to rise going forward.

There's a school of thought that says the UK housing market is a bubble that will one day burst, and compared with other countries Britain's housing stock comes out as 30% overvalued. But apart from the 2008 dip, there seems no sign of the bubble bursting anytime soon. Even if in the near future salaries rise, and more housing stock becomes available, it will still be a challenge to get your foot on that ladder. 

Darren Winters
 
Blogger Templates