The consensus view on Philip Hammond's Autumn Statement is that it wasn't very interesting. But the consensus may be wrong. To see why, consider something he dropped in aroundthe middle (when most people had stopped listening).
"We believe that a market economy is the best way of delivering sustained prosperity to the British people," he said. "We will always support a market-led approach; but we will not be afraid to intervene where there is evidence of market failure." He then went on to announce that the letting fees charged to UK tenants are an example of market failure and abolished them.
This made some sense. Because letting fees are charged to the tenant, who is unable to shop around, they have risen to unreasonable levels. The new rules should change that. And the key point is that we can read these three lines of Hammond's speech as a summary of the line that the May government will be taking on an awful lot of things.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
They aren't going to just get out of the way of the private sector. They are going regularly to intervene to try to make the private sector better. Those in any doubt should turn to our cover story this week, where we look at the effective market failure behind ludicrously OTT executive pay and then to politics and economics, where we touch on Theresa May's plans to do something about it. There is talk of worker representation on boards, of binding shareholder votes on pay and of publishing pay ratios (between the highest and lowest salaries in a firm) to shame boards into getting a grip.
It's a good start to the conversation, but to get to a good end, Hammond and May might like to think of executive pay in the same way as they have letting fees. It is all about putting the power in the right place. Landlords can force fees down. Tenants can't. In the boardroom, remuneration committees could push pay down. But why would they? The same goes for institutional fund managers. They should take control of the situation. But why would they? Drawing too much attention to the pay of corporate management might have the nasty side effect of drawing attention to their own outsized pay packets.
So to solve this problem, May has to get the power to change it into the hands of those who it technically belongs to, who should use it and who would use it the retail shareholders. Now that we all invest through funds and platforms, very few of us actually engage with the companies we are the end investors in.
So it's time for some administrative changes (the type that technology makes cheap and easy). May should make sure that all platforms and managers routinely offer the beneficial owners of shares (that's us) the ability to vote at AGMs for every firm and on every resolution (with votes on pay binding). Those who don't care can ignore the emails. Those who do can vote for change. That should put the cat among the pay pigeons.
-
Beat the cost of living crisis – go on holidayEditor's letter As inflation rages, energy bills soar and the pound tanks, what’s a good way to save money this winter? Go on holiday, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How capitalism has been undermined by poor governanceEditor's letter Capitalism’s “ruthless efficiency” has been undermined by poor governance, a lack of competition and central banks’ over-enthusiastic money printing, says Andrew Van Sickle.
-
Don't be scared by economic forecastingEditor's letter The Bank of England warned last week the UK will tip into recession this year. But predictions about stockmarkets, earnings or macroeconomic trends can be safely ignored, says Andrew Van Sickle.
-
The biggest change in the last 17 years – the death of the “Greenspan put”Editor's letter Since I joined MoneyWeek 17 years ago, says John Stepek, we’ve seen a global financial crisis, a eurozone sovereign debt crisis , several Chinese growth scares, a global pandemic, and a land war in Europe. But the biggest change is the death of the “Greenspan put”.
-
The wolf returns to the eurozone’s doorEditor's letter The eurozone’s intrinsic flaws have been exposed again as investors’ fears about Italy’s ability to pay its debt sends bond yields soaring.
-
Things won't just return to normal – that's not how inflation worksEditor's letter You might think that, if inflation is indeed “transitory”, we just need to wait and everything will return to “normal”. But this is a grave misunderstanding of how inflation works, says John Stepek.
-
Car hire and the strangeness of the post-pandemic economyEditor's letter A global shortage of hire cars and unusually high hotel occupancy rates sum up the post-pandemic global economy in a nutshell, says Merryn Somerset Webb, with enhanced demand meeting restricted supply.
-
Why we need to get a grip on our governmentEditor's letter Our government is trying to do too much, enacting policies that are destructive to the private sector. It needs to drop the the feel-good nonsense and create policies that lead to long-term wealth, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
