We’re on the cusp of returning to an era of financial repression

Edmund Greaves warns that the Government’s new powers to direct pension fund investment mark the start of a shift toward financial repression

The Government is giving itself power to force pension schemes to invest in the UK. This would set us back onto the path to financial repression.

Financial repression is something we’ve largely forgotten about as a concept in the UK.

But for around 30 years after World War II it was one of the most important – and pernicious – policies for economies looking to bury their bad debts.

With the Government set to give itself the power to compel financial institutions in the UK to invest pension scheme members’ money into British assets – we are on the cusp of returning to that era.

Before I get into the ins and outs of financial repression – I must say (and did make clear in this week’s podcast) that this is just the beginning of a policy journey that could take any number of directions. But the scene is now set for what is to come.

What is financial repression?

Financial repression is a mechanism used by Governments which face painfully high national debt levels.

Financial repression comprises policies that result in savers earning returns below the rate of inflation to allow banks to provide cheap loans to companies and governments, reducing the burden of repayments.

It can be particularly effective at liquidating government debt denominated in domestic currency.

There are a few ways the Government can do this:

1. Explicit or indirect capping of interest rates, such as on government debt and deposit rates.
2. Government ownership or control of domestic banks and financial institutions with barriers that limit other institutions from entering the market.
3. High reserve requirements.
4. Government restrictions on the transfer of assets abroad through the imposition of capital controls.
5. Creation or maintenance of a captive domestic market for government debt, achieved by requiring financial institutions to hold government debt via capital requirements, or by prohibiting or disincentivising alternatives.

Point number five sounds an awful lot like what the Government has announced today with regards to compelling UK pension scheme to invest domestically.

More from Edmund Greaves

Why is this an option for the Government?

In the situation we are in today – with a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 100% – the Government faces tough choices about how it continues to raise, and spend, money.

It is politically toxic to cut spending (austerity) but it is also practically impossible to tax more too. Both would seriously hamper economic growth – something desperately needed to improve people’s standards of living and ensure the country doesn’t collapse into chaos.

This is where governments reach for this little-understood policy tool – financial repression.

This tool works in a number of ways, but the main purpose is to force savers to accept lower returns, generally leaving their pots worse off against inflation.

Over time as the economy grows, this makes the relative size of the national debt look smaller as a percentage of GDP. It makes the Government’s debt repayments more affordable and means it doesn’t have to make the aforementioned unpalatable political choices.

We have historic precedent for this – it is exactly what a series of governments between around 1945 and the 1970s opted to do. In the wake of World War II, national debt sat at more than 200% of GDP – even worse than the current predicament.

By the 70s this had fallen to less than 30% – all thanks to financial repression.

It was decided – over many years – that it was a policy choice worth making despite its effects on savers, in order to avoid drastic spending cuts or tax rises. It was the ‘least worst’ option.

Who is worst affected?

The winners and losers of financial repression are fairly easy to define.

Winners include the Government, who gets to devalue its debts. Working people who aren’t big asset owners also potentially win as services aren’t cut and taxes aren’t raised. That is subject however to workers ensuring their pay rises with inflation consistently.

The big losers are savers – or anyone with assets that have to stay ahead of inflation.

The Bank of England is currently cutting its base rate, all while inflation is ticking up close to 4%. This in effect creates the perfect conditions for financial repression to take place.

The point here is that the Government is unable to tax wealthier pensioners (see why they’ve reversed on the winter fuel allowance cuts) without facing severe consequences at the ballot box.

Instead, financial repression acts like a stealth tax on asset holders/savers. The Government can simply point to the rising cost of living as to why retirees suddenly find their pension and savings incomes aren’t keeping up with costs.

Of course, there is a significant caveat in this thanks to the state pension and its associated triple lock.

In an environment that punishes savers (read: pensioners) the state pension triple lock provides an income guarantee at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. This means that financial repression is to an extent ‘progressive’ in that it is wealth that is taxed away, so the more of it you have, the more you stand to lose.

Again, we’re not in the middle of this yet, but we are now on the path to it with these pension law changes.

And the reality is that this may be our only answer to the horrendous fiscal situation the country finds itself in. at the end of the day someone is going to have to feel the pain in order to put the national finances back on an even keel.

It might be that financial repression is the only option to do that now.

Photo credits: Pexels