PSD2 had been previously described as a game changer for the financial industry, that was set to have a substantial impact on how mobile payments are conducted and authorised. Along with the challenges that face the mobile payments industry, there are also sizeable advantages to the new payment services directive that offer increased security for its users and a level playing field for payment providers. Shane Leahy, CEO of Tola Mobile, explains for Finance Monthly.

Since its inception in January 2018, many businesses which already operate within this space have argued that PSD2 hasn’t made an immediate and significant impact within their processes like they thought it would. Having said that, it is clear that PSD2 has bought a whole host of benefits and opportunities for new players to enter the market and produce a strong, customer-centric offering.

Whilst it was initially reported to be disruptive, the new regulation update has allowed for a real opportunity to move out of digital services and into a new era of payment services. PSD2 is helping to standardise and improve payment efficiency across the EU fintech industry, all whilst promoting innovation and competition between banks and new payment service providers.

PSD2 not only encourages the emergence of new payment methods in the market, it also creates a level playing field for new and existing service providers to innovate, create and ultimately give customers increased choice and availability. It puts the customer back in charge and offers a secure protection of data regulations that merchants will have to abide by.

One of the biggest impacts for mobile payment providers has been the imposition of spending limits on the Mobile Phone Network Operators (MNOs). For them, and companies who are operating under the PSD2 exemption, the maximum transaction amount a subscriber can be charged is £240 per month. This is all for voice, SMS, data and third party products either offered and available to the subscriber.

Another impact has been the requirement for a two-factor authentication process on every payment, and the restriction on the ‘billing identifier’ being taken by the payment provider from the network. In this instance, the billing identifier is the mobile phone number, and this has to be provided by the subscriber during the discovery phase of the acquisition of the mobile payment. This aligns the process more closely to credit card payment acquisition. By having a two-factor authentication, a new level of payment authorisation and transparency not previously seen in mobile payments has been discovered. This brings new levels of trust that is more commonly associated with credit cards, but with more ease of use and convenience of using your mobile phone number to make purchases for goods and services.

Some banks within the industry have grasped PSD2 with both hands, including Dutch client bank, RaboBank. RaboBank is creating its own mobile ecosystem around mobile payments with a rich choice of value-added services, as it looks to move its customers from a SIM-based mobile payments model into the cloud - and becomes one of the first banks to tap into what PSD2 allows banks to do.

Recent reports from MobileSquared have seen that ticketing could be one of the biggest industries to be affected by PSD2, with a third of customers in the UK being keen to start using charge to mobile to buy low-value tickets such as bus fares and train tickets. PSD2 opens up the market to a full transformation that will allow big ticket items to be sold using direct carrier billing. This brings a whole host of benefits for ticketing merchants and its customers, that can benefit from a seamless payment system, quicker processing times and easily accessible.

With the continued effects of the new directive set to be felt across the next 24 months, payment providers in the European Union must ensure they are compliant with the regulations of this well anticipated update.

The customer is at the core of PSD2, and banks, merchants and new payment providers will be looking to become completely compliant with the changes to suit a more customer-centric offering. Payments via any IoT devices will become a more popular method for customers and merchants will look to push more mobile payments due to lower processing fees, subsequently empowering the customer even more. As the industry sets to move towards a more open and intelligent banking ecosystem, financial institutions and fintech companies should embrace the impact PSD2 is having and understand that it will continue to have an ongoing significant impact on their offering throughout 2018.

Beijing recently retaliated the US’ extensive list of around 1,300 Chinese products it intends to slap a 25% tariff on.

The White House claims the intentions surrounding these tariffs are to counter the ‘unfair practices’ surrounding Chinese intellectual property rights.

In response, China has escalated the trade war to an extent none expected, targeting over 40% of US-China exports.

However, the question is, will these tariffs, from either side, affect the backbone of their nation’s economy? What else might be impacted in the long term? This week’s Your Thoughts hears from the experts.

Roy Williams, Managing Director, Vendigital:

In order to mitigate the impact of tariffs and maintain profitability, it is essential that businesses with global supply chains give thought to restructuring their operational footprint and where possible, pursue other market or supply chain opportunities.

With China warning that it is ready to “fight to the end” in any trade war with the US, UK businesses should be in preparing for a worst-case scenario. In addition to China’s threat to tax US agricultural products, such as soybeans being imported into the country, the EU has warned that it may be forced to introduce tariffs on iconic American brands from US swing states, such as oranges, Harley Davidsons and Levi jeans.

In order to minimise risk and supply chain disruption, businesses that trade with the US should give careful thought to contingency plans. For example, importers of US products or raw materials should review supply chain agility and may wish to consider switching to alternative suppliers in parts of the world where there is less risk of punitive tariffs.

On the other hand, for exporters from the UK looking to reduce the impact of tariffs, it will be important to focus on the cost base of the business and consider diversifying the customer base in order to pursue new market opportunities. To a certain extent, this is likely to depend on whether businesses are supplying a commodity item, in which case the buyer will be able to switch to the most cost-effective source. If a buyer does not switch it may indicate they have fewer supply options than the supplier may have thought.

Businesses with products involving high levels of intellectual property and high costs to change are likely to hold onto their export contracts. However, they could face negotiation pressure from their customers. They should also bear in mind that barriers to change will be lost over time and customers can in almost all cases find alternatives, so preparation is key.

Access to reliable business management data can also play an important role in mitigating risk; helping firms to identify strategic cost-modelling opportunities and react swiftly to any new tariffs imposed. In this way, enabling businesses to access real-time data can help them to continue to trade internationally, whilst keeping all cost variables top of mind.

While a trade war would undoubtedly introduce challenges for businesses with global supply networks, it could nevertheless present opportunities for those that are well prepared. For example, with prices of Chinese steel likely to fall dramatically, UK importers of steel could consider striking a strong deal before retaliatory trade measures are introduced.

George S. Yip, Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Imperial College Business School, and Co-Author of China’s Next Strategic Advantage: From Imitation to Innovation:

The US has had huge trade imbalances with China for years. So why retaliate now? Yes, President Trump is a new player with strong views. But it is no coincidence that the US is finally waking up to the fact that China is starting to catch up with it in technology. This catch up has many causes:

• The huge investment by the Chinese government in fundamental and applied science and technology. For example, China now has the world’s largest supercomputers and its many declared science objectives include dark matter, artificial life, and nanoscience.
• The return to China of Western trained scientists, lured by both government incentives and economic opportunities. For example, Royole, a Chinese world leader in flexible display was started by Bill Liu, a Stanford PhD in electrical engineering, who chose to return to China to set up his new company partly because of the massive presence of automakers, a primary customer group.
• Chinese companies have learned from their Western joint venture partners, partly because of the enforced transfer of intellectual property to which President Trump is objecting. The sky is literally now the limit for China, having launched a mid-sized passenger jet to compete with Airbus and Boeing.
• China’s huge home market as well as its enormous exports now support investment in R&D that can be rapidly monetised via commercial products. Even Japan, in its heyday, failed in its attempt to challenge Airbus and Boeing.
• Chinese companies are now using their financial power to acquire Western companies for their technology. For example, in 2016, Midea acquired Kuka, one of Germany’s leading robotics companies, much to the anguish of the German government. The economic ideology of most Western governments means that Western technological crown jewels are mostly unprotected from foreign acquisition.

So, it is no surprise that the US tariffs apply mostly to technology-based Chinese exports such as medical devices and aircraft parts. In contrast, China is retaliating with tariffs primarily on US food products. While such tariffs will hurt politically, they will not hurt strategically.

Rebecca O’Keeffe, Head of Investment, interactive investor:

President Xi’s speech overnight appears to have struck the right tone, providing some relief for investors who have been buffeted by the recent war of words between Trump and China over trade. While there was already an overwhelming sense that Chinese officials were keen to achieve a negotiated settlement before the proposed tariffs do any lasting damage to either the Chinese or US economies, today’s speech was the clearest indication yet that China is prepared to take concrete steps to address some of Trump’s chief criticisms. The big question is whether President Trump will now take the olive branch offered by Xi’s conciliatory approach and dial down the rhetoric from his side too.

Corporate profits have taken a back seat to trade tensions and increased volatility over the past few weeks, but as the US earnings season starts in earnest this week, they will take on huge significance. Equities received a huge boost when the US tax reform bill was signed into law in December and investors will want to see that this is feeding through to the bottom line to justify their continued faith. A good earnings season would do a lot to regain some equilibrium and provide some much-needed relief and calm for beleaguered investors.

Richard Asquith, VP Indirect Tax, Avalara:

Last week’s Chinese tariff escalation response to the earlier US import tariffs threat was far stronger than many would have expected. It now looks likely that the world’s two most powerful countries, and engines of global growth, will enter a tariff war by June.

China’s retaliatory tariff threat last week is targeting products which account for about 40% of US exports to China. However, the US had only singled out Chinese goods accounting for 10% of trade. This makes the next move by the US potentially highly self-harming since, if it matches China, it will mean big US import cost rises on foods and other key Chinese goods. It will also mean less vital technology access for China.

The Chinese have also shrewdly singled out goods produced in the Republican party’s heartland constituencies. This will close the US government’s options on further measures. The Chinese have also refused to enter into consolation talks in the next few weeks until the US withdraws its initial tariff threats. This type of climb-down is unlikely to be forthcoming from the current US administration.

Whatever the outcome, China is now seeking to paint itself as the champion of globalisation and liberalisation of markets. It has already offered lower import tariffs on cars, taking the sting out of US claims of unfair protections to the domestic Chinese car producers.

This all means that we are in a stand-off, and the proposed tariffs from both sides are locked in for introduction in the next two months. This could be hugely damaging for a global economy recovery that is, after many years turgid performance, looking very positive. Global stock markets are already in flight at the prospect of no quick resolution and the fear of a reprise of the calamitous 1930s Smoot–Hawley Tariff Bill escalation.

We now have to see which side will blink first.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

From the current situation in the US to oil and gambling stocks, Rebecca O’Keeffe, Head of Investment at interactive investor, shares some thoughts on this week’s news.

The huge importance of politics to equity markets might have led one to conclude that the US shutdown would be a negative factor for markets, but the bullet-proof nature of current markets, combined with limited economic impact on stocks that a shutdown delivers, has seen global markets shrug off any major concerns. The last US government shutdown in 2013 lasted sixteen days, during which the S&P 500 rallied 3.1% and the two prior shutdowns to that in 1996 and 1995 also resulted in gains for equity markets, so there is certainly precedent for investors to ignore these events. It is only if a protracted shutdown starts to impact consumer confidence and spending that investors are likely to sit up and take notice.

Gambling stocks have tumbled in early trade, after the weekend press suggested that the current government consultation might cut the fixed odds betting limit to just £2. Gambling companies have made hundreds of millions of pounds a year from fixed odds betting terminals and were hoping that the minimum stake would be towards the middle of the £2 and £50 consultation range. Although the consultation does not end until tomorrow, the suggestion that the response to the survey has been overwhelmingly in support of a cut to the minimum £2 means that this is indeed a significant threat to bookmakers.

In Germany, it looks like the stalemate that has afflicted German politics since September may finally be reaching a resolution, after the SPD voted to engage in coalition talks with Angela Merkel and her party. This vote will hopefully ensure that a repeat election can be avoided and should allow Chancellor Merkel to retain her place as a key lynchpin of the European Union and a major player in any Brexit talks.

Oil prices are on the rise this morning, as Opec and Russia have signalled their intent to co-operate on supply beyond the current deal terms. However, OPEC and Russia are just one half of the supply story, as producers in the US, Canada and Brazil are all expected to ramp up output in response to higher oil prices. With these new dynamics in the oil market, the possibility of higher supply is a major downside risk for the oil price.

Here Charu Lahiri, Investment Manager at Heartwood Investment Management, discusses the current challenges at the heart of online retailing and the overall effect click to click has had on commercial property markets.

Online retailing is an evolving landscape that is leading to structural shifts in the commercial property market across the globe. Here in the UK, internet sales now make up 16% of total retail sales compared to less than 4% a decade ago, according to the Office of National Statistics. This trend is expected to grow further; indeed, the average weekly value of internet sales totalled more than £1 billion in September, a 14% increase year-on-year. In fact, the UK leads the rest of Europe in total online sales volume.

Inevitably as retail purchasing trends are changing, demand for traditional bricks-and-mortar retail is falling. Mid-market UK based retailers in the fashion industry are reported to be reducing the number of stores that they plan to open, as well as considering closures at lease expiry. Furniture retailers’ expansion plans have also been curtailed in the last couple of years, with High Street names such as John Lewis and Next having ceased their activity in acquiring stores in the pure homewares market.

Instead, retailers are adapting by restructuring supply chains and, in turn, requiring warehouse and logistics facilities for multi-level purposes. These include e-fulfilment warehouses to prepare and ship orders; picking and sorting; returns; and last mile delivery centres. According to Prologis, every €1 billion spent online requires an additional 775,000 square feet of warehouse space.

Supply constraints and pent-up demand

Supply constraints mean that the warehouse/logistics sector is struggling to keep up with demand, which reached a new peak at the start of 2017 [Source: JLL]. For example, between 2012 and 2016, when e-commerce was expanding, just 13.65m square feet of warehouses was delivered to the market, compared to 40.47m square feet between 2005 and 2009 [Source: Kevin Mofid, Savills].

Constrained supply has been attributed to the lack of developable land, given that the UK market is noted for having high barriers to entry. This has resulted in a shortage of ‘grade A’ prime property: in the fourth quarter of 2016, grade A available supply fell 23% and a further 3.3% during the first quarter of 2017. In addition, speculative completions during 2017 are expected to be lower than historical levels. In part, this decline is due to limited development finance post the Brexit vote, but importantly some occupiers are shifting to purpose-built facilities as much of the existing stock is considered insufficient for e-commerce needs.

Pressure on prime rents

These trends are resulting in high occupancy rates, low vacancy rates and rising pressure on prime rents. According to researchers Cushman & Wakefield, annual prime rental growth ranged from 3.1% in the West Midlands to 13% in Yorkshire in the first quarter of 2017. The South East, East and Yorkshire are seeing the strongest increase in e-commerce demand and rental growth in those areas is above 10% per annum. These supportive conditions offer stable and long-term income opportunities for investors, notwithstanding that the risk premium versus UK gilt yields is compressing.

Overall, the outlook remains constructive for rental growth prospects in the logistics and warehouse sector, due to the underpinnings of strong supply and demand dynamics. Total returns in the industrial and logistics sector should outperform those for office and retail over the next few years. That being said, the UK property cycle is maturing and investors may have to expect lower returns compared with recent history, despite strong fundamentals.

We have for some time advocated an investment approach that is targeted to sectoral trends, but also one that can seek income and return from specific regions. Over recent months we have chosen to invest in UK regions and cities outside of the South East and London, where capital values and yields potentially offer more attractive value. We believe that there are opportunities to be exploited in UK commercial property, but they are now appearing in more specific areas of the market which are undergoing structural change.

Following the recent disasters that hit the US mainland, Finance Monthly reached out to Nalanda Matia, Lead Economist at Dun & Bradstreet, to gather thoughts on the overall impact felt by supply chains throughout the various industries, regions and markets.

Mother Nature hasn’t been kind to the United States in the past month or so; Hurricane Harvey left a trail of destruction on several counties in Texas, while Hurricane Irma devastated parts of the Sunshine State, most notably The Keys. The stormy season doesn’t look like it will abate anytime soon. The market impacts of these natural disasters are significant, particularly on densely populated and urban cities.

While the financial repercussions of Irma are still being counted, let’s take a closer look at the impact of Harvey, including affected industries, the supply chain and the future outlook of the affected areas.

Impacted industries

Early estimates have placed the impact of Category 4 Hurricane Harvey at around $75 billion, with losses from insured and uninsured residential and commercial properties making up the majority. With the addition of other costs associated with business interruptions, lapses in employment gains, and additional flooding or damage to contents of the properties, the toll could be much higher.

The top industries in the state with the largest number of jobs that have been potentially impacted by the hurricane are services; manufacturing; wholesale and retail trade; mining; construction; finance, insurance, & real estate and agriculture, forestry & fishing.

Supply chain concerns

The disruption in energy exports and other supply chain activities as ports in the state remained closed to vessel traffic until floodwater damage was assessed affected consumers and trade, creating build-ups and delays.

Many industry supply chains will take a hit as the transportation industry looks to get business back to normal. The Houston area in particular accommodates several major airports with flights to more than 70 international destinations. With some of these airports closed for a few days, the air transportation sector faced considerable backlog that they’re still coping with today.

Waterborne transportation is also in crisis due to the closure for several days of all major ports in the Houston and Corpus Christi areas. Large container ships headed to Houston to load cargo were stranded or diverted to nearby ports to wait out the storm and port closures. This caused severe supply chain disruptions in both parts of the United States and internationally. Based on the diverse nature of cargo that goes through the Houston area ports, the supply chain interruptions were not just limited to energy or chemicals, but extended to other commodities, such as agricultural products.

Business and economic impact

The parts of the United States affected by Hurricane Harvey have relatively high populations and are economically developed areas, which has contributed to high economic losses, perhaps one of the highest economic costs incurred due to a natural disaster in the US. With thousands of businesses and their employees stricken, the economic outlook for the region as a whole is expected to be lacklustre, but this prognosis may be true only in the short term.

Looking more closely at what businesses were affected, the vast majority were micro and small businesses with fewer than 10 and fewer than 100 employees, respectively. Also, close to 40% of the affected businesses are fairly young – within the first five years of their life cycles.

According to our estimates, the county of Harris, TX seems to have undergone the maximum disruption as far as the number of affected businesses are concerned. The county contains more than 60% of the businesses that have been declared at risk.

What to expect from Irma

While Irma seems to have been a slightly stronger storm in terms of wind, its financial impacts – without diminishing its severity – might be slightly less than Hurricane Harvey’s. Dun & Bradstreet estimates over two million businesses to have been in the monster hurricane’s path. This includes 49 counties in FL, three in Georgia, four in PR and two in Virginia that have been declared as disaster regions by FEMA.

Early estimates regarding these businesses are that nearly 60% of the jobs affected are in Services and Retail – with the affected regions in scenic and tourist-frequented areas. Pre-Irma, about 12% of the businesses located in the path of the storm were in the riskiest class of the Dun & Bradstreet Delinquency Predictor score. Because of the hurricane, these businesses, which were already at risk of becoming severely delinquent, will have an increasingly difficult time meeting their obligations.

Early estimates put the damage from Hurricane Irma in Florida and the surrounding areas at closer to $50bn, but the exact number is hard to predict exactly at this stage. As the southern coastal states count the cost of these disasters, we envisage a number of months until all services, transportation systems, supply chains and the economy are back to normal.

Although these current disasters are not expected to leave a permanent imprint on the economy of the United States, the immediate consequences of these increasingly frequent events cannot be ignored.

Between hurricane Harvey and Irma, states in the US have been truly ravaged by disaster. The effects of destruction have now left long lasting marks on local economies and the performance of markets, among many other things.

OPEC, for example, was severely impacted by the hurricanes, as we saw demand pitfall despite continued production and refining. Goldman Sachs stated that both Harvey and Irma will leave a huge dent in the oil market, leading to a global reduction in consumption of oil by 600,000 bpd in September.

We asked Finance Monthly’s expert contacts what they made of the situation, and have heard Your Thoughts on the overall impact of hurricanes on oil markets and beyond.

Nathan Sage, Market Analyst, PhillipCapital UK:

Hurricane Harvey was one of the biggest storms to hit the gulf coast in a decade with the total damages now estimated at upwards of $180 billion. The category four storm made landfall in Texas as it peaked in intensity and now holds the record for the wettest tropical cyclone to hit mainland US states. The significance of its landing is important as Texas and States along the gulf coast are a major refining point of crude oil and are responsible for around 12% of the country’s refining capacity.

Before Harvey hit, traders were already nervous, and crude, both Brent and West Texas Intermediate, ground lower until dropping as Harvey made landfall. The major moves were in the markets for distillates especially in the gasoline market which gained over 16% as fears of a fuel shortage spread across the state and surrounding areas.

The low of oil was a good buying opportunity for traders as the drop in refining would ultimately lead to higher inventories but the lasting effect of the rise would only be temporary for traders with a moderate outlook. Brent and WTI have both added 3.74% this week and 7.5% since its low last week. The short term effects of Harvey have already been seen in the data with initial jobless claims rising 62,000 in the week to September 2nd totalling 298,000 way above the expected 245,000.

The lasting effects of Harvey from the oil industry’s point of view has now largely worn off with pipelines and refineries coming back online earlier this week and business is mostly back to normal. In the same breath, traders will now be focussing on Hurricane Irma which has already devastated most of the Caribbean and is expected to make landfall this Sunday. Florida has less of a significate for oil markets but insurance companies will weigh on US stock markets as the costs from both Harvey and Irma start to mount. The full extent of the losses are yet to be seen but some are expecting the most Harvey-exposed insurers to take an earnings hit of around 25-30%. It’s no surprise that heading into the weekend risk appetite has waned and we can see US markets edging lower on the open.

Longer term and away from the storms, the overarching themes in oil markets remain focused on the global supply glut. Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov has said that Russia would benefit from extending its agreement with OPEC to limit global supply and said the benefits would extend to “everyone involved”. Without an extension of the agreement and if the world’s largest oil producers were to have full autonomy on their own output it would likely lead to a huge correction lower in prices. This would be especially true, as the recent higher oil price has allowed shale producers to become more efficient and are now able to operate at a lower breakeven point than before.

Fiona Cincotta, Senior Market Analyst, City Index:

The markets are breathing a sigh of relief as the trail of devastation left by Hurricane Irma was not quite as bad as was initially feared. Whilst Florida is still receiving a pounding from the now Category one storm, notably Miami managed to dodge the most dangerous part of the storm. So far news of catastrophic damage hasn’t come through, which is a promising sign that the markets are focusing on.

As a result of the severe but not catastrophic Hurricane Irma the dollar index enjoyed its biggest 1 day jump in 10 days, gaining 0.5% versus a basket of currencies. Meanwhile the Dow Jones futures surged over 100 points, whilst the S&P 500 futures were also pointing to a positive start for the index.

The markets were on edge in the days leading up to the hurricane given the difficulty in assessing the financial impact of natural disasters. However, although the initial assessment is that the impact of the storm is not as bad as first feared, we still expect some evidence of economic damage from this hurricane and hurricane Harvey to feed through to the economy in the form of weaker economic data such as labour market numbers, economic growth and retail sales. Therefore, investors will be paying particular attention to Thursday’s retail sales numbers. Significantly weaker than expected data could weigh heavily on sentiment.

The other point to keep in mind is that the economic impact of hurricanes tends to be short lived and often the rebuilding effort offsets the damage the hurricane caused to the economy. Therefore, if economic data is slightly weaker, this should only be a blip rather than the start of a new trend. Federal Reserve Official Dudley confirmed this last week by saying that he didn’t expect the outcome of Hurricane Irma to impact on the monetary policy outlook.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

 By Mihir Kapadia, CEO of Sun Global Investments

In November 2016, for most observers, a Donald Trump win was a slightly worrying possibility and a Hillary Clinton victory seemed to be the best route for economic continuity and stability.  But then the unexpected happened; Trump won the Presidential Election and the market rallied strongly from the next morning onwards.  

 This optimism continued as Trump’s inauguration approached, with markets anticipating the sweeping economic reforms promised by his campaign.  In the market, this was christened the ‘Trump Trade’, and over half a year since President Trump took office, some of the optimism seems to be showing signs of fading.

Markets were apprehensive mainly because Trump seemed to be an unknown political factor and a threat to the established order.  Some people feared a similar panic to the one that swept global markets in the aftermath of the BREXIT vote.

However, with hindsight, Trump’s ascent represented a great investment opportunity for investors. His economic policies emphasised large scale infrastructure investment, significant reforms and a large stimulus which is likely in aggregate to be positive for economic growth and activity.

Trump exhibited a more conciliatory tone towards Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve, compared with the more hostile rhetoric of the campaign.  This emphasised continuity and stability and reassured the markets further.

The dollar surged to new heights and the situation seemed promising for investors who had hoped to see progress in the US economy by an administration that would not be mired in a political stalemate.  Trump achieved a Republican majority in both houses, a fact which in theory increased his chances of pushing through his legislative agenda.  Compared with the Obama administration which often faced a hostile and partisan Congress, the Trump administration seemed to represent a more decisive direction for the US economy with pro-growth policies and promises of tax cuts and deregulation.

These factors ensured some progress for the US dollar and for US assets.  However, some more troubling questions have arisen about the administration in more recent days.  It has been argued that campaign promises have not materialised, and in some cases, such as the President’s tough stance on China, these seem to have reversed altogether. In addition, the numerous scandals and controversy to have hit the White House since January have led to questions as to whether the Trump administration will be competent enough to deliver on their economic agenda.

One key event was the release of US first quarter GDP figures that showed the slowest growth in years.  Although it is still early days for the Trump administration, it was viewed by some as indicating the failure of the Trump administration to boost the economy. On this view, despite the promises of tax reform and infrastructure investment, few if any of Trump’s economic policies seem no closer to fruition than they did before the election. It is this which seems to have cooled investor optimism. However, this is not the complete picture - while the US dollar has declined in 2017, US Stocks (especially the NASDAQ) have powered away and are at new all-time highs at the time of writing.

During the campaign Trump criticised the Fed for its policy of keeping interest rates low. Whilst Trump’s opinion on interest rates has varied, he has argued for a lower dollar which many see to be somewhat inconsistent with lower interest rates. Whilst the Fed has raised interest rates once this year, with officials indicating that two or three more interest rate increases were on the way, recent events have seen interest rates on hold and the likelihood of more rises this year is again under question.

Many controversies have pervaded Trump’s time in office; this did not seem to affect markets much until a flare-up of the James Comey – FBI issue which eventually rattled the stock markets and the US dollar. This soon evolved into a larger ongoing investigation into the administration’s links with Russia.

Foreign policy has also proven fraught with uncertainty, with the latest economic sanctions on Russia straining relations with the allies in the EU. Both US and European businesses have expressed concerns over the prospect of being penalised by the very same sanctions aimed at punishing Russia, due to the amount of partnerships and contributions involved. For investors, some of the allure of Trump during his time in office would appear to have faded for the time being.

However, Trump’s time in office has seen a very different story unfold within emerging markets, with its biggest loser being Mexico. The key effect was Trump’s controversial policy for a border wall between USA and Mexico for tackling illegal immigration.

Upon Trump’s victory the Mexican Peso crashed to record lows, with more details of the President’s plan hurting the emerging market’s economy – and relations with the US, further.  The threat to use remittances as a tool to fund the wall, amongst other ideas, also served to threaten other Central American economies.

However over half a year since Trump’s inauguration the markets tell a very different story. The Mexican peso has become one of the world’s best performing emerging market currencies, rallying to a 14-month high since January after Trump took office. After the volatility seen at the beginning of the year, the peso has seen far more positive movement over the first seven months of Trump’s presidency. This positive sentiment has boosted other risky assets including Emerging Market Assets.

In conclusion, the Trump Presidency presented an opportunity for a resurgent US economy with comparisons made early with President Reagan’s time in office. Half a year later, Trump’s presidency has proven to be tumultuous, subverting expectations for some and confirming them for others. Although US stocks and emerging markets have gained strength, global risks for investors have also risen under the turbulent Trump administration. If this is taken as a sign of things to come, it is likely that investors will see more volatility over the next 4 years.

Cyberattacks have been widespread, common, and even expected now at firms worldwide. Many companies have been affected by cyber hacking, ransomware and threats, with reports emerging almost weekly about new attacks. It is now acceptable to be worrying about cybersecurity at a priority level, and if you aren’t, well you should be.

Finance Monthly, in this week’s Your Thoughts, asks what might be the long-term impact of cybersecurity attacks and similar cyber damage, not just to the individual firms and their pockets and operations, but to the markets they trade in, the economy of the countries they reside, and the overall global fluidity of markets.

Our guests this week answer questions such as: What are cyberattacks, the effects and impacts, doing to markets, the economy and our countries? How is trade affected in certain sectors? Do you have stats to show this? How do you think companies will react to cyber threats?

Dr Benjamin Silverstone, course leader for computing and quantitative business, Arden University:

The recent ransomware attacks have very publicly demonstrated vulnerabilities in business IT security. Firstly, the direct impact is that the business infrastructure is affected. Companies can be left unable to process orders, causing their operations to shut down, which directly affects their finances along with those of stakeholders. This leads to a second impact on business; consumer confidence.

A number of cyber-attacks in recent years have focused on obtaining personal details of customers and, where possible, defrauding them by pretending to be a familiar company. Rather than blaming the faceless cyber-criminals, consumers will increasingly turn to the company that is being impersonated to ask how this sort of thing could happen in the first place. The readiness to share details online, even with legitimate companies, is being affected and this will damage their business in the long term.

Ultimately, businesses need to consider the cost/benefit of investing in better security systems and changes in practice, to reduce the impact on their business-critical processes. Investment in these approaches may be seen as disproportionately high given the likely impact of an attack; but as we’ve seen successful attacks can, and do, negatively impact reputation in significant ways, and it is these intangibles that are hard to regain. Rather than an expense, improving security should be viewed as an investment, and insurance against brand damage to help ensure future longevity.

Oz Alashe, CEO, CybSafe:

When WannaCry struck in May, shares in cybersecurity and anti-virus companies surged. Once bitten, twice shy is the old adage, and being crippled by a cyber-attack makes for an uncomfortable AGM. The logical outcome from a global cyberattack is that companies invest in the latest cyber technology to prevent themselves being the next victim.

However, cyberattacks cover many facets. It can also include embarrassing phishing attacks that pranked the Morgan Stanley CEO, James Gormley, and the Bank of England’s Mark Carney recently. Phishing, albeit only one attack vector available to cyber criminals, is particularly noteworthy at present. A recent government survey suggested three-quarters of medium to large businesses in the UK had discovered at least one cybersecurity breach or attack, and a vast majority of these attacks were phishing emails or websites. The report also stated that a “sizeable proportion” of businesses didn’t have “basic protections” in place.

The National Crime Agency recently said that “many businesses failed to report attacks for fear of damaging their reputation.”

One of the biggest phishing incidents in recent history affected Google and Facebook, which both were scammed out of over $100 million in a sophisticated attack. This is concerning because it affects the supply chain and trade relationships. Trade is driven by trust, and if you can’t trust who you are trading with, it undermines the relationship.

What is the answer? Build trust; if you can equip staff with the skills to detect and prevent phishing and other cybercrime attempts you can empower everyone to be the first line of defence for cyberattacks.

Inga Beale, CEO, Lloyd’s:

Cyber-crime already costs an estimated $450 billion a year[1], and that figure is going to rise as more and more devices are connected to the internet and the sophistication of attackers grows.

This is having – and will continue to have – a huge impact on businesses. Lloyd’s new report on cyber risk, ‘Closing the Gap’, produced in association with KPMG and legal firm DAC Beachcroft, shows that as well as the immediate costs caused by cyber-attacks, slow-burn costs such as, litigation, loss of competitive edge and reputational damage can substantially increase the final bill. In today’s multi-media world, it can be the reputational fallout from a cyberbreach that kills modern businesses.

At the same time, more stringent regulations are being put in place, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation – or GDPR – that will increase the penalty for companies that fail to protect European data from cyber threats. When this comes into force in 2018, the courts will be able to fine companies up to EUR20m or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher, if they fail to comply with the new rules.

Despite these growing implications, it’s clear that many businesses are not facing cyber risk head-on. Recent Lloyd’s research shows that while 92% of respondents said their company had suffered a data breach in the past five years, only 42% are worried about suffering another breach in the future.

Nicola Whiting, COO, Titania:

The annual cost of cybercrime to the global economy is estimated to be between $375 billion and $575 billion (Mcafee, Net Losses - Estimating the global cost of cybercrime, June 2014) . Unsurprisingly the richest countries are hit hardest, with G20 nations suffering the bulk of losses. Low-income countries currently have smaller losses, partly due to their infrastructure and reliance on mobile Internet.  However, this may change as richer countries continue to invest more in their cyber security and as criminals find new ways to exploit mobile platforms.

The impact on countries is just as important when it comes to international relations. Just look at the hack of the Democratic party and the publication of confidential emails during the 2016 US presidential election, which elevated cyber security in the context of international affairs to a new level around the world.

Hackers will target any industry they can profit from, thus is highlighted by the wide range of nations and industries impacted by the ransomware attack last month. Aside from any financial loss the biggest impact can be on reputation and share price.

However, analysis shows that some sectors are potentially more at risk than others. For example, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ 2014 Global Economic Crime Survey, 39% of financial sector respondents said they had been victims of cyber-crime, compared with only 17% in other industries. Other research from Trend Micro assessed breaches that took place between 2005 and 2015 and showed health care as the most highly targeted industry for data breaches.

Any industry that stores customer information, such as credit card details, is a potential target. In 2015 Hilton Hotels, Starwood Hotels & Resorts, Mandarin Oriental and the Trump Collection all admitted that their payments systems had been compromised. Hilton and Starwood said guests’ personal details had been taken after hackers gained access via payment systems.  Hackers may have turned their attention to hotels after retailers began improving their security following a series of high-profile attacks on US chains in late 2013 and 2014, including breaches at Target and Home Depot. So any business that handles or stores sensitive data is at risk and once one sector builds its defences hackers will target another one they perceive to be weaker.

Most companies are not doing enough to secure the assets they’re creating. Large organisations can have incredibly complex networks and ‘border control’ issues as they can struggle to secure their IT infrastructure & supply chain. Smaller organisations find it easier to understand where their system borders are, but may lack resource and expertise to secure them.

In both there is inevitably more to be done in two key areas; reducing ‘human errors’ through security training and ensuring the ‘security basics’ are followed. The number of costly breaches that occur through basic training and security failures is astonishing – most of which could’ve been averted.

We’ve worked with everyone from the Department of Defence to small SME’s in creating tools to automate these security basics. Security automation is something all businesses should look at, humans beings make mistakes and when that inevitable ‘wrong click’ happens, it’s your next line of defence.

Patrick Martin, Cyber Security Specialist, RepKnight:

According to Forbes, Financial Services are in the Top-5 targeted by cyber-crime. This is borne out by the huge amount of data relating to the financial sector on the dark web. We put some of the UK’s leading financial services companies into BreachAlert, our software tool for searching and monitoring the dark web, and uncovered over 5,000 results. Each find contains thousands of pieces of information about financial services — most are as a result of a data breach one way or another.

Right now, cyber-criminals and bad actors are busy stealing data from within corporate networks and listing it for sale on the dark web. Most organisations neither know about it nor are they equipped to detect or do anything about it. Employee names, addresses, logins, and corporate credit card information is readily available, and companies carry on completely unaware of any illegal activity.

According to the 2017 IBM Ponemon report this year’s study suggests the global average cost of a data breach is down 10% over previous years to $3.62 million, due in large part to a strong US dollar. In the UK they assess £2.48 million to be the average total cost of a data breach. In addition, victims can suffer 5% drop in average stock price the day a breach is announced; 7% loss of customers and 31% of consumers discontinue the relationship. But things are about to get much worse next year when the EU enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with costs for organisations that suffer a data breach to be £20 million or 4% of their annual turnover, whatever figure is higher.

For most businesses, it can be next to impossible to find out if its information is on the dark web. So what can businesses can do to protect themselves? The key is for all businesses is to improve their understanding of how the dark web works, how criminals are using it to buy and sell their data and to put a plan in place to mitigate the damage once their data has been posted on the dark web.

The trick lies in acquiring advanced automated search technology and innovative data management processes. It’s vital for businesses to invest in this type of software that can monitor hundreds of dark web pages and filter and extract information based on things like card numbers and domain names. It’s even more essential to use software which can instantly alert you when your data is being shared or discussed on the dark web. The good news is that this type of software is already on the market and investing in it can save your business from receiving hefty fines from GDPR.

Pascal Geenens, EMEA security evangelist, Radware:

Today there are vibrant online marketplaces where just about anyone—even those with very limited technical knowhow—can buy tools to execute an attack. Cryptographic currencies enable untraceable digital payments, while old-fashioned economics is driving the growth of these marketplaces. Demand for services now outpaces supply, and DDoS-as-a-Service providers can bring in more than $100,000 annually.

Purchasing an attack can be surprisingly inexpensive. On the Clearnet, for as little as $19.99 a month, an attacker can run 20-minute bursts for 30 days utilising a number of attack vectors like DNS, SNMP, SYN and slow GET/POST application-layer DoS attacks. All an attacker has to do is create an account, select a plan, pay in Bitcoin and access the attack hub to target the victim by port, time and method. More advanced and larger botnets are also available for sale on the Darknet.

The motivation for people to pay for such attacks has different drivers, but profit is the most prevailing through the use of Ransom DDoS attack campaigns. The responses from nearly 600 enterprises world-wide confirm this through Radware’s annual ERT report: Ransom is the #1 motivation for cyber-attacks suffered by the respondents: 41% global average, 49% in Europe (half of the businesses!).

Recent trends such as cloud migration, digital transformation, automation (IoT, IoE) and serverless computing increase the number of targets for cyber-attacks. As our economies are becoming more dependent on these online technologies and dark marketplaces, dark marketplaces and economies will thrive on the potential of ransom DoS.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/07/cybercrime-costs-the-global-economy-450-billion-ceo.html

 By Paresh Davdra, CEO & Co-founder of RationalFX & Xendpay

It was 1961 when Britain flustered into an application for membership of the European Economic Community – an initial step in the direction of something that would, over the years, translate to being a part of the world’s largest single market and by 1973, Britain was officially a part of the EEC.

The blueprint of this vision for the European Union, one that would be intrinsically linked on socio-economic paradigms, existed way before it was officially enacted upon under the treaty of Maastricht in 1993. The main reason for a Union was seen as a preventive measure against the possibility of future rises of nationalism, and along with this came the economic benefits through collaboration between a few of the world’s most productive countries.

In some ways, it feels like Britain’s membership of the European Union has come and gone quickly; what’s passed even quicker is the year since the UK decided to end their relationship with the EU. The implication of this development has affected more lives than one can count and of course has made a significant impact on the business sector of both the UK and the remaining EU 27 countries.

The immediate impact of the referendum was felt in the local currency valuation – in June 2016, the pound witnessed shock market devaluation as investors lost confidence in the UK’s future economic outlook. A total devaluation of 17% was immediately priced into the pound. Since then, a lot has transpired – we have faced the turbulence of the US presidential elections, which in addition to the June vote, appeared to spell an uncertain future of the global economic outlook. This did not change much, as uncertainty at home and uncertainty abroad combined began to affect the global markets, leaving investors riding on speculative waves through the initial months of Brexit and the US Presidential elections.

Then there was the legal challenge to the UK government’s ability to trigger Article 50 without going to Parliament. This entire affair actively shaped the market outlooks through the few months of court hearings and market fluctuations, with numerous ‘remainers’ possibly hoping for a U-turn on Brexit. Of course, this would not be the case in any way, yet the court hearings would see valuations of UK companies and the pound change within the course of mere minutes. Furthermore, organizations throughout the UK raised concerns over uncertainty of access to the single market, especially in light of immigration and passporting rights for employees, an aspect considered crucial by most international organizations that are headquartered in the UK, this story however, is on-going and much clarity is yet to be delivered.

Through the Brexit year, consumers have had to endure the news that Marmite and Nestlé coffee would now be more expensive, in addition to few other FMCG’s. At this point, organisations had already started to price in the beleaguered pound, as market confidence refused to budge. However, there seemed to be some hope for a few sectors of the UK economy; for instance, the export sector enjoyed the priced down costs on the back of the devalued pound – while the manufacturing sector faced the brunt of rising costs due to the same reason.

After the court hearing on triggering Article 50, a vote and a general debate in parliament raised points on mandatory mentions of key issues within the official notification for triggering Article 50. Thus began the process to pen down the divorce bill that marginally touched on issues such as promises of securing rights for EU citizens in the UK. Even though the picture appeared to be one of a panic struck market, in the initial days of 2017, we somehow found ourselves amid a seemingly buoyant economy. As UK organizations amended their overarching business plans, the economic data releases spoke a much sturdy language – bringing back hope to the UK’s future prospects as an independent economy.

On 29^th March 2017, the Article 50 notification was presented to president Tusk, officially invoking Article 50 and starting two years of negotiations to establish a deal for the UK’s exit from the Union. In the letter presented to Donald Tusk, the UK acknowledged the ‘four freedoms’, the main doctrines that lie at the heart of the EU and buttress the single market. The UK pointed out that goods, capital, services, and labour are inseparable and emphasized that we are not pursuing association with the single market. Nevertheless, the importance of “economic and security cooperation” was emphasized on along with a stern mention of a “bold and ambitious” Free Trade Agreement that would encompass sectors crucial to the two linked economies such as financial services and network industries.

By now the markets have priced in the uncertainty of Britain’s future relationship with the EU, Prime Minister Theresa May has, on several occasions, announced a new outlook towards the world with a vision for a more ‘open’ Britain. The new outlook has brought to light new aspects of economic ties that Britain is seemingly inclined on exploring, especially the ‘look east’ policy – scouring trade ties with India and the Middle-East, either of which have not yielded concrete results thus far. However, this may not be the main challenge for the UK currently. The ability to maintain a skilled workforce along with seamless cooperation between international associations such as the regulatory authorities and other associations maintaining consistent global standards could be the challenge that we must address for a sustained outlook towards a better future, with or without the EU.

One year on since the referendum, much of the mist still remains. The way forward does appear clamorous with much room for scepticism, but being at the cross roads many times since the June vote has strengthened the ones involved, though it may be difficult to distract ourselves from hard economic truths – the way forward certainly does require hard work in truly looking at an independent and ‘open’ Britain.

The bravery of the UK is deeply reflected in its economic strength and the belief in itself is the key driver for the near future, the markets have righteously shrugged off the shock and scaled themselves to absorb even more. We are not at a time and place where a wait and see policy would flourish.

Androulla Soteri, tax development manager at MHA MacIntyre Hudson below discusses the consequences of the US President’s potential implementation of tax reform in the country, and the impact it could have on UK business.

Corporation Tax (CT) has been an important part of the election manifestos, and we now find ourselves in a coalition of two parties supporting a move towards lower CT rates. This makes it clear which direction the new government will decide to go in.

The main argument for dropping CT rates is to make the UK a more attractive place for multinationals to locate business. This in turn increases the job-pool which raises further tax revenue in the form of National Insurance contributions, and consequently VAT as consumers have more disposable income to play with. In over a decade, CT has never made up more than 11% of total tax take. Given its relative lack of significance, there’s a strong argument to suggest an overall benefit in reducing it.

One of the arguments against a reduction is that if big multinational companies were forced to pay their fair share of CT, this would help reduce the budget deficit and national debt, and also contribute to public services such as the NHS, schools and policing.

But it’s also worth taking a look at the US, which has one of the highest rates of CT in the world at 35%. One of Trump’s intentions is to drop the rate to 15%, to bring US companies back home. If this happens, US businesses could lose interest in investing in the UK, especially with Brexit looming on the horizon. Instead, they could look to repatriate headquarters, increasing employment of US citizens and consequent tax revenues associated with it.

If Trump’s plan is a success, the UK could be shaken hard over the next few years, especially in light of ongoing Brexit uncertainties. Lowering CT rates in the UK may therefore be an incentive for companies to remain within a benign competitive UK tax system.

The task of running the UK over the next two years is unenviable. But if the Government sticks to its plan of lower CT rates, we’ll certainly see clear evidence within the next few years of whether this is good or bad for the economy.

For all the stability that this latest General Election was due to bring, the Great British Public awoke on Friday morning with more questions than answers. With a weakened Government and a reinvigorated opposition, what does the world now look like for the fintech industry? Here, Kerim Derhalli, Founder and CEO of fintech app invstr, discusses the results’ impact on the fintech sector.

Traditionally, politics and technology has had an uneasy relationship. On the one hand, tech innovators strive to upset the status quo and find new ways of doing things; on the other, governments tend to be comfortable once they have exerted control over the unknowns of new technology.

The great challenges

In the aftermath of two horrific terrorist attacks in London and Manchester, Theresa May moved quickly to criticise technology companies for providing “safe spaces” for extremist ideology, reinforcing the Conservative pledge for greater regulation of the internet.

Labour, conversely, support greater rights on the internet specifically, backing a ‘Digital Bill of Rights’ within their digital manifesto – released in August last year.

How will these two opposing ideologies play out in a fintech world brimming with optimism and entrepreneurship? There are pros and cons, and it may be that a hung parliament works in the favour of the tech glitterati.

The criticism of the Tories has been that they protect the big boys. Low corporate tax and a reduction in business red-tape will have the big banks rubbing their hands, but there’s also plenty for startups, disruptors and SMEs to be excited about.

But the Conservative’s manifesto declaration that “for the sake of our economy and our society, we need to harness the power of fast-changing technology” should be treated with caution.

Harness or heel?

The phraseology is fascinating. What does ‘harness’ really mean? If it means a managed level of regulation, which keeps consumers safe from the more sinister aspects of technology, while maintaining the capacity for innovators to try new things, then fintech entrepreneurs will be cheering.

If the real result is Big Brother laying down the law and attempting to bring the disruptors to heel, then the outlook isn’t so positive and, in reality, this approach is liable to backfire. As we’ve seen with Trump, the social revolution and today’s unprecedented access to shared information, the masses will soon make themselves known if they feel the palm of oppression settling on any of their concerns.

In January, Mrs May and Co. announced their modern industrial strategy, which promises investment and support for science, technology and innovation. On the surface, this is great news for the fintech set. University R&D funds, similar to that of the United States, could really accelerate advancement for innovative startups.

In the red corner

And what of their prime competitors? We’re now a decade on from the financial crisis, and Labour has said that it is time to reawaken the finance industry.

Their headline campaign announcement was a National Investment Fund that will bring in a £250 billion boost in lending for small business across the country. The manifesto cited private banks, small businesses and promised “patient, long-term finance to R&D intensive investments”. With fintech firms by-and-large falling into this category, this mantra could prove to be a firm positive for the sector, if the opposition flexes its muscles over the next term, as it can now do.

Back to the language of the document; Labour’s manifesto called out ‘big City of London firms’ as those which don’t support growth in communities. With tens of thousands of fintech roles sitting in the Square Mile currently, there may have been a few CEOs shifting uncomfortably in their seats.

Just last week, new figures from Europe’s prestigious Fintech50 list, which picks out the hottest fintech organisations, shows London providing half of the overall list.

Labour also pledged to appoint a Digital Ambassador to liaise with technology companies to “promote Britain as an attractive place for investment and provide support for start-ups to scale up to become world-class digital businesses”. Can one person change the face of tech investment in the UK? Fintech disruptors would be pleased to have an advocate in Whitehall, but similarly, the country is already showing that it is a leader in the world of tech and long may that continue.

The continuing turmoil is Westminster isn’t good for business on the whole. According to the Institute of Directors, confidence has plummeted since Thursday’s result – leaders want, believe it or not, ‘strong and stable’ leadership.

But the balance which the hung parliament gives us – a weakening of heavy-handed regulation policies on one side, and a firm dose of realism on the other as to what cash is available – may well work in the fintech industry’s favour.

Fintech is up to the challenge and will thrive. The arm-wrestle between governance and technology, politics and finance, regulation and disruption, between the established and the new, will continue. We’re opportunistic creatures, and we’ll continue to adapt and make the most of the breaks whatever government is there is provide them.

With the election on our doorsteps, Jonathan Watson, Chief Market Analyst for Foreign Currency Direct talks to Finance Monthly about the potential impact of the UK’s general election on the national economy and the pound.

This election has gone from being one of the most predictable to actually quite an uncertain event. With this shift in outlook we have unsurprisingly seen the Pound too, go from fairly stable to displaying the more predictable behaviour caused by political uncertainty. Whilst Theresa May remains the favourite, the potential for surprise is high as polls in recent years have been anything but reliable. With the Conservative lead having fallen from as much as 20 points to less than 1 point in some cases, the market is having difficulty pricing in the news and possible outcomes. On Friday we could easily be looking at a slim Labour victory or a Conservative landslide. I am personally expecting a small improvement on the current Conservative majority of 17 which could call into question Theresa May’s decision to hold the election in the first place if not sufficient for a Conservative win

Elections are by nature uncertain events as they raise the prospect of a change in the Government responsible for setting taxes, spending and economic policies. Elections also take time, and often consumers & business delay important decisions to wait for the outcome.

The UK election must also be viewed against the backdrop of Brexit, without which we would not be having this election. The main reason it has been called is, according to Theresa May, to improve her negotiating position. Critics suggest other tactics but where Theresa May has framed the election about Brexit and many feel she is the right person to handle those negotiations, Labour have however made the election about austerity and played some strong cards to appeal to voters.

Free tuition fees and free school lunches as well as increases in government spending are all designed to appeal to the masses and could well earn Labour extra support. Such plans, if they come to fruition could certainly see Sterling lower, as the Pound performed very badly in the run up to both the 2010 and 2015 elections when it looked like Labour may win and they pledged to increase spending as they have now.

Mrs May and the Conservative party aren’t perfect, having also failed to spark much imagination with their policies performing a series of U-turns and failing to provide clarity on taxation policies. Whilst committing to being a ‘low-tax party’, they haven’t explicitly promised not to raise taxes. Theresa May’s U-turn on the issue of social care, and indeed her decision to call an election have also contributed to her slide in both the polls and approval ratings.

The spate of terror incidents we have seen lately are another factor weighing on the market. Terror attacks typically cause a currency’s value to fall, and whilst Sterling had fallen, the Pound actually found favour as markets felt that voters would believe Theresa May could be better placed to handle such incidents.

Market participants, investors, businesses and consumers all contribute more effectively to society when there is confidence and certainty. The run-up to an election is by its nature uncertain, hence the fall in Sterling value, particularly with Theresa May having previously looked so likely to win by a considerable majority. If the polls are right and the lead has narrowed the result is likely to see the Pound decrease in value based on those previous expectations.

This election is absolutely critical to shaping Brexit negotiations. Theresa May might also end up looking foolish for calling the election. There is the outside chance of her losing power either through losing the Conservatives’ power or being forced to step down if they lose. My belief however, is that the Tories will have done enough to boost their majority but not to the extent we previously believed. Nevertheless this may be enough to boost the Pound and provide a little more certainty over the Brexit.