UK bank tax would fall on shrinking shoulders
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
By Liam Proud
LONDON, Sept 11 (Reuters Breakingviews) -Asked why he robbed banks, outlaw Willie Sutton is supposed to have replied, “because that’s where the money is”. British finance ministers have often displayed a similar attitude towards lenders when it comes to tax policy. Yet if Rachel Reeves is eyeing the sector for a raid of her own next month, she’ll find that it’s less flush than it seems.
The new Labour government, whose first budget Reeves will deliver on Oct. 30, is on the lookout for “broad shoulders” to help plug a 22 billion pound ($29 billion) fiscal “black hole”. Reeves hasn’t mentioned banks, but Britain’s lenders are already stepping up their lobbying efforts against a possible tax raid, Reuters reported last week.
It’s easy to see why Reeves might target NatWest NWG.L, Lloyds Banking Group LLOY.L, HSBC HSBA.L, 0005.HK and Barclays BARC.L. The average 2023 return on tangible equity across the quartet was 14%, compared with a probable cost of equity of around 10%. High central-bank interest rates turbocharged their income, while the banks paid relatively little of the boost away to customers in the form of higher deposit rates. Worse, from a political perspective, is the fact that is that the banks are coining it in even as the Bank of England, which is ultimately funded by the public purse, is racking up losses because of the high rate it pays lenders on their reserves.
One option is a windfall tax. There’s a precedent: the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher introduced a one-off 2.5% levy on banks’ non-interest-bearing deposits in 1981, citing the need for lenders to make a “special fiscal contribution” after high interest rates supercharged their profits. That raised 400 million pounds, or 1.5 billion pounds in today’s money. Meanwhile, Spain and Italy have been among the many European governments to introduce bank windfall taxes following the recent bout of rate hikes.
The problem for Reeves is that her budget hole mostly relates to recurring overspending bequeathed by the last government, which makes a one-off windfall tax a poor fix. Another, more radical, option would be to reduce the number of bank reserves that qualify for central-bank interest payments, ultimately saving the Bank of England and Treasury money. Yet Reeves herself has squashed the idea, while BoE Governor Andrew Bailey warned that it could complicate his quest to control inflation.
That leaves a couple of niche taxes. First is the bank levy, which Conservative finance minister George Osborne applied from 2011 ostensibly as a tax on flighty wholesale funding, with a target of raising 2.5 billion pounds within a few years. The rate kept going up, often without a clear justification, until in 2015 when Osborne announced a gradual reduction in the levels and the introduction of a new, simpler levy: an 8% corporation-tax surcharge for banks. In 2021, Rishi Sunak cut that to 3% when he ran the Treasury, to soften the blow of broader corporate tax hikes.
Reversing that most recent cut, which would effectively give banks a headline corporate tax rate of 33% compared with 25% for a typical company, could raise 1.5 billion pounds a year, the Trades Union Congress reckons. Simultaneously taking the bank levy back up to 2015 levels would boost the annual haul to 3.8 billion pounds a year, according to the same organisation.
The question for Reeves is whether big banks are really the broad-shouldered targets she is looking for. With rate cuts now coming, some of the super-normal earnings should ebb away. Analysts reckon NatWest, Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays’s average return on tangible equity will fall by one percentage point this year to 13%.
Bank valuations suggest returns will decline further in the coming years. NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC trade roughly in line with their expected tangible book value in a year’s time, based on analysts’ forecasts, which implies that their long-term returns will be barely match their cost of equity. Barclays rating, at 0.6 times tangible book, suggests its earnings will be nowhere near enough to clear shareholders’ typical return requirements over the long term.
The upshot is that banks’ current stellar performance is probably an exceptional windfall, rather than an argument for the permanent tax hikes of the kind that Reeves is looking for. She may well go ahead regardless, but the logic of such a move would be closer to the bank robber Sutton’s thinking than she might like to admit.
Follow @Breakingviews on X
CONTEXT NEWS
Banks in Britain are intensifying their lobbying against possible tax hikes in the new Labour government's first budget next month, Reuters reported on Sept. 4 citing senior industry sources.
The sources, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said they anticipate the Treasury will seek to raise an existing surcharge that banks already pay.
Reuters reported that a spokesperson for the Treasury said it would not comment on "speculation about tax changes outside of a fiscal event". Britain’s budget announcement is scheduled for Oct. 30.
UK banks' returns may already have peaked https://reut.rs/3MCRiFO
UK banks' are barely trading at book value https://reut.rs/3z2bmOK
Editing by Neil Unmack and Streisand Neto
免责声明: XM Group仅提供在线交易平台的执行服务和访问权限，并允许个人查看和/或使用网站或网站所提供的内容，但无意进行任何更改或扩展，也不会更改或扩展其服务和访问权限。所有访问和使用权限，将受下列条款与条例约束：(i) 条款与条例；(ii) 风险提示；以及(iii) 完整免责声明。请注意，网站所提供的所有讯息，仅限一般资讯用途。此外，XM所有在线交易平台的内容并不构成，也不能被用于任何未经授权的金融市场交易邀约和/或邀请。金融市场交易对于您的投资资本含有重大风险。
所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。
本网站上由XM和第三方供应商所提供的所有内容，包括意见、新闻、研究、分析、价格、其他资讯和第三方网站链接，皆保持不变，并作为一般市场评论所提供，而非投资性建议。所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为适用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。请确保您已阅读并完全理解，XM非独立投资研究提示和风险提示相关资讯，更多详情请点击 这里。
