Home Blog Page 4

France’s Political Turmoil and Its Ripple Effects on British Households

A Political Earthquake in France

For over a decade, Marine Le Pen has been on a mission to reshape the image of her Rassemblement National (RN) party, distancing it from its far-right origins and positioning it as a serious contender in French politics. This week, she made a bold move that has sent shockwaves through France’s political establishment. On December 3, 2024, Le Pen orchestrated the collapse of Michel Barnier’s minority government over his deficit-cutting budget, declaring once and for all that the RN is no longer a party to be ignored.

“This is the first time that the RN (formerly the ‘Front National’) has been in a position to influence public affairs in this way,” said Philippe Olivier, a senior RN figure and Le Pen’s brother-in-law. His statement reflects the party’s transformation from a fringe political movement to a central player in shaping French policy. Yet, this newfound power comes with significant risks—not just for Le Pen’s ambitions but also for the stability of the country.

President Emmanuel Macron now faces the unenviable task of appointing a new prime minister capable of steering a fractured parliament. The political deadlock has left France vulnerable, with markets poised to punish any signs of instability. Investor concerns are mounting, and for good reason. At the end of November, the yield on 10-year French government debt briefly surpassed 3.02%, overtaking Greece’s 3.01%. The symbolism is hard to ignore.


Le Pen’s gamble to topple Barnier’s government is not without peril. On one hand, it strengthens her image as a decisive leader ready to shape France’s future. On the other, it risks alienating white-collar and affluent voters—key constituencies she needs to win the presidency. For now, her move seems to resonate with her working-class base, who polls show overwhelmingly supported the censure motion.

Her justification? The RN acted to protect the French from a “toxic budget.” Critics, however, argue that her motivations are less noble. Le Pen has faced allegations of embezzling EU funds, with prosecutors recently seeking to bar her from holding public office. Many speculate that this bold political maneuver is partly an attempt to shift the narrative and trigger snap elections before any legal repercussions can take effect.

The roots of this turmoil stretch back to July, when Macron dissolved parliament and called snap elections—a move that inadvertently strengthened the RN. The party’s representation soared from eight seats in 2017 to 140 today, making it a swing bloc in the National Assembly. With Macron’s centrist alliance losing ground, the RN has found itself wielding newfound influence in a parliament divided into three irreconcilable factions.

This fragmentation has led to strange bedfellows, with political foes occasionally uniting to block or pass amendments. Macron’s centrists and Barnier’s conservatives have been plagued by internal divisions and absences, leaving debates increasingly dominated by the RN and the left.

On 3 December 2024, the RN joined forces with the leftist bloc to pass a censure motion—a collaboration that would have been unthinkable in the past. Despite last-minute concessions from Barnier, Le Pen rejected any compromise. The defiance has bolstered her standing among RN supporters, 86% of whom approved of the move, according to Toluna Harris Interactive polling. But critics accuse her of plunging the country into crisis for political gain.

Gabriel Attal, Macron’s former prime minister, dismissed the RN’s claims of being ready to govern. “Despite years of effort to convince the French you are responsible and ready, this moment confirms it was all hot air,” he said. Jean-Philippe Tanguy, a senior RN lawmaker, dismissed such criticisms as “project fear” and predicted minimal disruption with an emergency budget expected soon.

Still, the question remains: will this gamble pay off for Le Pen? Political scientist Luc Rouban suggests that while she may gain short-term advantages, prolonged dysfunction could damage her party’s long-term prospects.

Interest Rates and Mortgages

France’s political turmoil is not just a domestic issue; it has significant implications for the broader European economy. Investor confidence, already shaky, could deteriorate further if political gridlock persists. This mirrors the UK’s experience during the Liz Truss “mini-budget” fiasco, where government missteps wreaked havoc on financial markets.

In October 2022, Truss’s unfunded tax cuts sent UK bond yields soaring—the 10-year gilt yield surged from 2.8% to over 4.5% in weeks. Mortgage lenders panicked, withdrawing products overnight. A similar dynamic is now unfolding in France. Its 10-year bond yield has risen from 2.5% earlier this year to 3.2%, reflecting growing unease. If left-wing factions like La France Insoumise exploit the chaos to push through radical measures—like reducing the retirement age to 60—yields could spike even higher.

This instability doesn’t stop at France’s borders. Rising French yields could increase borrowing costs across the Eurozone, adding pressure to the European Central Bank’s already delicate balancing act between inflation control and growth.

The implications for British households are sobering. Just as the Truss mini-budget led to skyrocketing mortgage rates in the UK, prolonged instability in France could nudge the Bank of England to maintain higher rates for longer. With living costs already high, any additional volatility in mortgage rates would stretch household budgets further.

In 2023, the average two-year fixed mortgage rate peaked at over 6% before easing slightly. Renewed rate hikes—whether due to domestic policy or European instability—could push monthly payments higher for millions of households.

How Could This Impact British Households?

While France’s political drama may seem distant, its economic ripples can cross the Channel and affect British households in several ways:

  1. Currency Fluctuations and Travel Costs: Political instability often weakens a nation’s currency. If the euro depreciates significantly, British travelers to France might benefit from a more favorable exchange rate, making holidays in France cheaper. However, for exporters, this could mean stiffer competition for UK goods in Europe, potentially impacting British businesses and employment.
  2. Energy Prices: France is a key player in Europe’s energy market. Prolonged instability could disrupt energy policies, particularly if it affects nuclear energy production—a cornerstone of France’s power grid. Given the interconnected nature of European energy markets, any disruptions could exacerbate energy price volatility in the UK.
  3. Economic Interdependence: France is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. If political gridlock slows France’s economic growth, demand for British exports could decline, potentially hurting UK industries such as automotive, aerospace, and agriculture.
  4. Market Sentiment and Interest Rates: Turmoil in France could weigh on European market sentiment, influencing the Bank of England’s decisions on interest rates. For British households, this might translate to continued volatility in mortgage rates and borrowing costs, especially for those already grappling with elevated living expenses.

Lessons from Across the Channel

The RN’s rise and its role in the political chaos provide a cautionary tale about the risks of polarization. While Marine Le Pen’s calculated moves might bolster her party’s immediate credibility, they also underline the potential economic costs of political brinkmanship, which may have far-reaching consequences.

For British households, the lesson is clear: global politics are never truly “foreign.” Whether it’s a weaker euro impacting trade or higher borrowing costs stemming from broader European instability, the effects of political turmoil in France could reach your doorstep sooner than you think.

Is the Labour Government’s New Inheritance Tax Policy Driving People Away?

I was chatting with one of my best friends a few days ago. We discussed life in the United Kingdom and the recent changes made by the Labour government. While some of her (very) wealthy friends were critical of policies such as VAT on private school fees or the end of the non-dom regime, the new rules on Inheritance Tax (IHT) were without the shadow of a doubt the most difficult ones to accept.

Inheritance Tax in the United Kingdom has always been contentious, balancing government revenues against family wealth preservation. Recent changes by the Labour government have reignited debates and raised concerns about potential unintended consequences, such as the relocation of wealthier individuals abroad.

Let’s examine the rules governing IHT as they stand, the latest reforms, and the knock-on effects that policymakers may have overlooked.

1. The Current Rules: How Inheritance Tax Works Today

Under the existing framework, IHT is levied at 40% on the value of estates above the applicable tax-free allowances:

  • The Nil-Rate Band (NRB): This is the baseline allowance of £325,000 per individual. Estates below this threshold pay no IHT.
  • Residence Nil-Rate Band (RNRB): Added in 2017, this £175,000 allowance applies when a family home is passed to direct descendants, such as children or grandchildren. Combined, these allowances mean an individual can pass on £500,000 tax-free – or up to £1 million for a couple.
  • Spousal Exemptions and Gifting Rules: Transfers between spouses are exempt, while annual tax-free gifts of £3,000 (per person) and smaller gifts of £250 are also allowed.
  • Reliefs for Businesses and Farms: Business Property Relief (BPR) and Agricultural Property Relief (APR) reduce the taxable value of qualifying assets, often eliminating IHT liability altogether.

This system appears straightforward, but rising property prices and frozen thresholds mean more estates are being drawn into the IHT net each year.

2. The Labour Government’s Autumn Reforms

  • Extended Threshold Freeze: The NRB and RNRB thresholds will remain frozen until 2030. With inflation and soaring property prices, this freeze effectively increases the IHT burden on middle-income families.
  • Inclusion of Pension Pots: Beginning in 2027, pension pots passed to beneficiaries will no longer be exempt from IHT. This change particularly targets estates relying on tax-advantaged pension savings.
  • Capping of Business and Agricultural Reliefs: From April 2026, reforms to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) will introduce significant changes for family farms. The full 100% relief from inheritance tax will be capped at £1 million for individuals, with higher thresholds of £3 million for couples passing assets to direct descendants and £2.65 million for non-direct descendants. Assets exceeding these limits will qualify for 50% relief, resulting in an effective inheritance tax rate of 20% on the surplus, compared to the standard 40%. Although spousal transfers remain exempt, critics warn that the £1 million cap on full relief could force smaller farms to sell land or equipment to cover tax liabilities. This policy, aimed at broadening the tax base and curbing tax avoidance, has raised concerns about its impact on rural livelihoods and multi-generational farming operations.
  • Abolition of Non-Dom Status: By 2025, long-term UK residents will face IHT on worldwide assets, closing a loophole often exploited by the wealthy to shelter foreign assets.

Labour framed these changes as a step toward fiscal responsibility, but they come at a time when many households are already feeling the pinch of rising living costs.

3. The Unintended Consequences of Rising IHT

Economic policies rarely operate in isolation, and Labour’s IHT reforms are no exception. While they might boost government revenues in the short term, they risk creating long-term challenges.

An Exodus of Wealth: Wealthy individuals and families are increasingly considering relocating to more tax-favorable jurisdictions. The abolition of non-dom status has emerged as a key driver of this trend. Countries such as Portugal and Switzerland, with their lower inheritance taxes, are becoming particularly attractive. Take, for example, that wealthy friend I mentioned earlier leaving the UK due to Labour’s policies—this is a prime example. For the (extremely) wealthy, it’s not necessarily the abolition of non-dom status on the income side that raises alarm. Instead, it’s the taxation of worldwide assets for inheritance purposes that many find unacceptable. And that’s making them leave the United Kingdom.

A Threat to Agriculture: Farmers argue that capping agricultural relief at £1 million may force families to sell off farms to cover tax bills. This is not merely a financial issue – it disrupts rural communities and could impact the UK’s food security. The government’s announcement has triggered widespread protests from farmers, but Labour defends the changes as necessary to prevent tax avoidance through the purchase of agricultural land. Early December, the Liberal Democrats have urged the government to exempt “working farms” from its new inheritance tax measures. During a debate in the House of Commons, Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesperson Tim Farron proposed a “working farm qualification exemption” to specifically target those using farms as tax shelters. The debate is far from settled…

Chilling Effects on Investment: Entrepreneurs have warned that reducing BPR will discourage investment in UK businesses. Fewer reliefs mean higher risks, which could push investors to look abroad, particularly at a time when the UK economy needs to attract capital.

Even as Labour officials tout these reforms as necessary for economic stability, the repercussions – economic, social, and even cultural – could prove far-reaching.

Final Thoughts

Inheritance tax has always been a polarizing subject, and Labour’s recent reforms have only deepened the divide. While the government’s intention to plug fiscal gaps is understandable, the measures could inadvertently weaken key sectors, drive capital out of the UK, and alienate the very taxpayers it seeks to target.

The real challenge for policymakers lies in balancing fiscal responsibility with maintaining a competitive and equitable economic environment. Whether these reforms achieve that remains to be seen. Would love to hear your thoughts.

U.S. Inflation Hits Lowest Level in Over a Year

U.S. inflation slowed for its sixth consecutive months in December and fell to its lowest level in more than a year. This is a further sign that price pressures may have peaked and would justify a slowdown in rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the consumer price index registered an annual increase of 6.5%. As a result, annual U.S. inflation fell in December to its lowest level in more than a year. 

While the annualized rate is still well above the Fed’s 2% goal, this was the lowest level since October 2021 and represents a notable decline from the 9.1% reached in June. Compared to the previous month, prices dropped by 0.1%.

“Core inflation” – which removes the effects of volatile food and energy prices – remains the Fed’s preferred inflation indicator. It rose 0.3% from the previous month, which amounted to an annual rate of 5.7%.

Commentators have noticed that Fed officials may feel justified in slowing down its rate hikes. Last months, Fed officials had already stepped down to a half-point rate rise, down from four consecutive 0.75% increases. 

I remain skeptical. Even if Fed officials are hinting to a 0.25% rise at their future meeting, it is still a rate rise. While Goods inflation tumbled to its lowest level since February 2021, Services inflation soared to its highest since September 1982. 

Source: Bloomberg

Also, Energy was the biggest driver of the decline in the YoY print. Energy prices are volatile and don’t necessarily translate a long term trend. The decline will help with input costs for manufacturing however. 

Shelter also rose on a month-to-month basis. 

Source: Bloomberg

And shelter was also the biggest contributor to Core CPI 0.3% gain. The increase in the shelter index in December at 0.8% marks one of the biggest increases since 1990s. 

Source: Bloomberg

After an initial kneejerk reaction, SPY is currently up 0.56% pre-market. 

In short, inflation (both headline and core) printed as expected (which might be a slight disappointment to markets). Goods inflation slowed but services continue to soar. Shelter costs are also playing catch up and are soaring with a lag.

There is nothing in this report that would suggest a Fed pivot. Fed officials will hike further. Even if it’s a 0.25bps hike, a terminal rate well above 5% is most definitely in the cards. There will be a small sense of relief and markets will trend up a little bit. But, as we mentioned here, Fed officials won’t like this unexpected easing of conditions and expect some tough talks from Fed officials should financial easing continue. 

No end in sight for UK house prices?

Following the catastrophic “mini-budget” that caused interest rates to skyrocket on the few mortgages still on offer, UK house prices continue to follow a downward trend. Indeed, house prices have dropped for four consecutive months now. According to mortgage provider Halifax, average house prices fell 1.5% between November and December. The decline is not as marked as the 2.4% drop recorded between October and November.

Still, the annual rate of house price growth slowed to 2% in December, down from 4.6% in the previous months. In my opinion, that rate will turn negative by the end of March.

Source: Halifax

In absolute terms, the typical property price stands at £281,272 in December (down from £285,425 in November and from £294,000 in August). Sadly, Halifax only released the cost of an average home in London (£541,239 in December). It would have been interesting to see the average cost of a home in central London (zone 1). I suspect the drop might have been even more pronounced in spite of a recent influx of Asian buyers and residents following political changes in Hong Kong.

Interest rates are still causing havoc but there are other factors at play

The Bank of England has raised interest rates nine times in the past year in an attempt to fight inflation. In addition to the spike in borrowing costs caused by Liz Truss, the country’s mortgage offering was severely curtailed by banks which could not keep up with soaring rates and the political instability. As you will recall, market expectations of further rate rises jumped after then chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng unveiled a “moni Budget” that contained £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts.

A recent report from the Resolution Foundation underscored the rising costs facing British families: the thinktank believes that approximately 3 million households face a £3,000 a year increase in their mortgage costs by the end of the 2023-24.

There are also reports that banks are applying more stringent criteria in an attempt to anticipate the cost-of-living crisis’ effects on households’ ability to make timely repayments.

Higher interest rates have also deterred house builders from embarking on new projects, according to data published last Friday that showed the construction sector contracted in December. That is particularly problematic because a constant lack of inventory and new supply are the main reasons as to why house prices remain at elevated levels. Lack of new supply may soften the decline but remains bad news for economic activity. For example, orders for new homes slumped while plans for civil engineering projects and commercial office buildings were put on hold, based on the latest S&P Global/CIPS construction PMI, which fell from 50.4 in November to 48.8 in December.

Some short term hope for home owners needing to refinance

Nationwide, the UK’s largest building society, cut up to 0.6% from its mortgage rates last Friday. The rate for a five-year fixed rate mortgage when borrowing 85% of the property valued dropped to 4.84%. Following a similar trend, TSB cut rates on five-year fixed rate mortgages for buyers by up to a percentage point. The rate for a five-year fixed rate mortgage when borrowing 85% of the property value fell to 5.49%.

It would appear that the policy reversal carried out by Jeremy Hunt restored some calm on the interest rate front while lenders are also responding to falling demand for mortgages by cutting rates.

Home buyers should be cautious

Halifax predicts that house prices will fall around 8% over the course of 2023. If house prices for the first six months of 2022 grew rapidly, they leveled off during the summer and have continuously dropped since September. A drop of 8% would mean that the cost of the average property returning to April 2021 prices, which remains an elevated level compared to the end of 2019.

The big unknown remains mortgage default. While there is no reason to be alarmed at this stage, an uptick in repossessions would accelerate the drop in house prices.

On a more positive note, cash buyers (are there any left?) are king. It might still be a little bit early to make a move but there will be interesting real estate opportunities for the first time since 2019. Except for very niche properties, bidding wars are no longer a thing.

UK Government introduces “anti-strike” bill

I’m sitting in a coffee shop today and staring at London’s mostly deserted street. Yes, it is Friday and no one really goes to the office since Covid. However, even so, today is especially quiet as there are virtually no trains running and workers are therefore unable to commute to work.

Nurses, rail workers, ambulance staff and may others have been striking in the hope of being awarded pay increases that might resemble double digit inflation.

Any person living in the UK – and especially London – knows the cost of living crisis is real. The Government is also aware that a slowing economy means fewer tax returns, more debt to fund the government and – as we’ve seen in the last four months – tax hikes. The disastrous Premiership of Liz Truss showed the limits on unfunded government policies, especially when those revolve solely around tax cuts.

New “Anti-Strike Legislation”

Following widespread industrial action across the country, the UK government announced new legislation to enforce minimum levels of services in eight specific sectors including the NHS.

As a reminder, there was already legislation put forward before Christmas that would have imposed a minimum service agreement on the railways, with employers able to sue unions and sack staff in the event of a breach.

However, the new legislation announced yesterday will supersede the one introduced last December and will impose “minimum safety levels” on multiple sectors. The proposed legislation is therefore not limited to railways.

The government said it would enforce these arrangements on ambulance, fire and rail services after a public consultation.

Ministers are hoping that voluntary agreements on minimum safety levels on sectors such as education, border security, nuclear decommissioning or other health and transport services will be reached.

But if voluntary deals cannot be achieved, the government proposes to step in and impose such arrangements.

According to the government, “the government has a duty to the public to ensure their safety, protect their access to vital public services and helm them go about their daily lives.” Furthermore, “the government will always protect the ability to strike, but it must be balanced with the public’s right to life and livelihoods.”

Not a done deal

The legislation is likely to be resisted int he House of Lords. In any event, it cannot be implemented until the consultation is completed.

Ministers invited union leaders to “honest, constructive conversations”, urging them to “return to the table and call of strikes.”

Unsurprisingly, unions believe the bill constitutes an unwarranted assault on their rights. Unions are still not over the 2016 legislation that raised the threshold for strike votes to be valid. Paul Novak, general secretary of the TUC, said it was “wrong, unworkable and almost certainly illegal” to force people to work when they had voted for industrial action, adding that unions would “fight this every step of the way”, both in parliament but also in the courts.

Finally, other unions also said that staffing levels in the NHS were almost safer on strike dats than at other times because of local agreements involving employers.

Labour leader Sir Kerr Starmer announced his intention to reverse the government’s legislation if it passed and if he won the next general election.

A plaster but not a cure

This new legislation – should it be passed in its current form – is a tool to pressure unions and nullify some of the ongoing strikes. While it might provide some relief from the news headlines that are not particularly favorable to the government, it does not really address the root of the problem: the cost of living crisis.

With approximately 13% of inflation on basic necessities such as food, industrial action is to be expected. The government is in a tight spot – in reality, inflation isn’t solely the government’s fault. But the tories – and labour to some extent – failed with respect to the following:

  1. Quasi-unlimited government stimulus and loose monetary policies during Covid were conducive to inflation. Some might even argue that it’s a simple Fischer equation. I think it’s a little reductive to thing so. Such policies were not the only reason for inflation. Supply side issues following the reopening of the world economy and China’s Covid policy also stoked inflation. And the war in Ukraine caused energy prices to skyrocket (in Europe at least), which fulled inflation. Those risks stemming from “the whatever it takes policies” implemented during Covid could have been highlighted better by governments across Europe. That criticism isn’t specific to the UK government.
  2. What’s specific to the UK government is the chaos caused in September 2022 by Trussonomics. A plummeting pound caused imported goods to be more expensive. This already came on top of Brexit which, regardless of yours views, is causing additional paperwork and costs in the short-term (this might not be true in the long run based on future trade agreements). In other words, the UK was importing inflation more than ever.

The UK government should be focusing on longer-term solutions while providing immediate support to households

The UK government should focus on (i) maximizing frictionless trade their closest trade partners and (ii) providing short-term support to shield households from exploding energy bills (which was part of Truss’ plan but ended up being so watered down and came way too late). France and other countries had already implemented “some form of an energy shield”energy shields” – mostly through regulated prices and subsidies. France has one of the lowest inflation rates for 2022. That support should have been available in the UK and there would have been ample wiggle room in the budget if markets had not turned against the government following the disastrous mini-budget.

The New Anti-Strike legislation will not achieve any of this. It’s a tactical way to kill strikes but it won’t fix the cost-of-living crisis.

Fed pushes back against “unwarranted” easing expectations

On December 14, 2022, the Fed hiked by another 50bps. More interestingly, markets are pricing a further tightening of market conditions. Expectations for the trajectory of Fed rates moves has shifted hawkishly since the December FOMC statement.

Source: Bloomberg

It seems that markets have finally recalled to “not fight the Fed.”

As some of you might remember, financial conditions had eased before the FOMC. An easing of financial conditions is not what you want where you’re trying to tame inflation by hiking rates.

Source: Bloomberg

The Minutes of the FOMC from December 13-14, 2022 have now been released.

The Fed wasn’t a fan of the market rally prior to the December FOMC meeting

Fed officials were less than pleased with the sudden surge in stocks ahead of the meeting and the apparent decoupling between market expectations and the Fed’s policy. As stated in the Minutes:

Participants noted that, because monetary policy worked importantly through financial markets, an unwarranted easing in financial conditions, especially if driven by a misperception by the public of the Committee’s reaction function, would complicate the Committee’s effort to restore price stability.

Source: Minutes of the FOMC from December 13-14, 2022

This is as clear as it gets when it comes to the Fed’s communication skills. In other words, the Fed is telling market participants the following: “we’re not bluffing.”

On page 10, the Minutes still noted that:

Many participants highlighted that the Committee needed to continue to balance two risks. One risk was that an insufficiently restrictive monetary policy could cause inflation to remain above the Committee’s target for longer than anticipated. […] The other fish was that the lagged cumulative effect of policy tightening could end up being more restrictive than is necessary to bring down inflation to 2 percent and lead to an unnecessary reduction in economic activity […].

Source: Minutes of the FOMC from December 13-14, 2022

While the statement in itself is not conclusive of a growing split among Fed officials, it does show that both sides of the argument are heavily debated.

Fed pivot incoming?

The Fed was clear that the fight against inflation is not over. Market participants – clearly still addicted to the era of free money and looking for the next fix courtesy of the Fed – should not expect any Fed pivot.

Several participants commented that the medians of participants’ assessments for the appropriate path of the federal funds rate in the Summary of Economic Projections, which tracked notably above market-based measures of policy rate expectations, underscored the Committee’s strong commitment to returning inflation to its 2 percent goal.

Source: Minutes of the FOMC from December 13-14, 2022

Market participants betting that the Fed will not hold interest rates at around 5% (the terminal Fed fund rate) to drag inflation back down might be for a rude awakening. Trade cautiously.

Indeed, the Minutes revealed:

No participants anticipated that it would be appropriate to begin reducing the federal funds rate target in 2023. Participants generally observed that a restrictive policy stance would need to be maintained until the incoming data provided confidence that inflation was on a sustained downward path to 2 percent, which was likely to take some time.

Source: Minutes of the FOMC from December 13-14, 2022

The Fed remains flexible and is keeping its options open

The Fed highlighted the ongoing uncertainty regarding the inflation and economic growth. As usual, the Committee emphasized that future decisions will depend on the incoming data.

In light of the heightened uncertainty regarding the outlooks for both inflation and real economic activity, most participants emphasized the need to retain flexibility and optionality when moving policy to a more restrictive stance. Participants generally noted that the Committee’s future decisions regarding policy would continue to be informed by the incoming data and their implications for the outlook for economic activity and inflation, and that the Committee would continue to make decisions meeting by meeting.

Source: Minutes of the FOMC from December 13-14, 2022