Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,990
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I do not have the same levels of confidence in the financial system.
The fact that a couple of percent increase in gilt yields caused a cascading situation where pension fund (supposedly the boring, safe, investors) were going to go insolvent in a matter of hours, required the BoE to abandon it's plans to drop QE and start printing money again.....this does not suggest to me that all is hunky dory under the surface.
But you know, apparently we need less financial regulation. Seemingly flying in the face of the fact that the financial markets failed again last week and had to be bailed out.
You need to understand why pension funds hold government debt (gilts = bonds) and how they move with the market to understand why this happened, as hard and as quickly.
With bonds they are normally discounted, so instead of paying interest they are sold at a discount. Their current value is hence a perceived interest rate over the period of their length subtracted from their face value.
The "interest rate" being how safe they are considered to be. Typically UK government debt is very safe and inflation very predictable and hence they are not heavily discounted. In fact they have in the past at times been bought at above face value they are considered that safe (where better to put your money when all the banks are at risk of going bust...?)
So thats why pension funds in particular like them. Very safe low interest, a good balance to hold at let the other investments hold the risk factor. They are also historically highly liquid, in that as well as being safe they are sought after and ensure that the funds maintain liquidity needed to ensure they can meet their short term liabilities (normally payment of pensions)
Now suddenly the government basically took a massive chunk out of their value. So now the pension funds not only saw a big chunk of their value vanish, but they were deemed less liquid without a large discount to face value.
The funds faced a double whammy potentially with now a shortfall in total funds but also potentially in liquid or near liquids funds.
This affected the Db schemes mainly since they have a commitment to fund, where as DC schemes with typically less bonds would have seen some impact that was the individual DC members problem not the schemes actuaries and ultimately the trustees who in the case of DB schemes woudl be the ones who suddenly had a problem on their plate. Potentially having to say the scheme would have a shortfall impossible to see corrected.
I may be wrong, but I cannot remember a time when that has happened before. Normally gilts/bonds are seen as a safehaven and the go to place, not the opposite.
Failure of the actual markets would probably have the opposite effect to what happened here. IE it was a complete and utter stuff up that no right thinking government (probably even Corbyn 111!!!1! ) would have managed to achieve.