On Monday morning, the price of brent crude rose by around 0.6% or over $86 per barrel.

This comes after G7's plans to cap the price of Russian oil at $60 per barrel in an attempt to put additional pressure on Russia over the country's invasion of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, oil producers' group Opex+ said it plans to stick to its policy of reducing output.

Opex+ is an organisation of 23 countries which has regular meetings to decide how much crude oil they can sell to the world market.

The pipeline has been shut for three days for maintenance and will not reopen unless sanctions are lifted.

"Pumping problems arose because of sanctions imposed against our country and against a number of companies by Western states, including Germany and the UK,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Gas prices surged on Monday 5^th September over pressing concerns around energy supplies. The Dutch month-ahead wholesale gas price, which is considered a benchmark for Europe, rose 30% in early trading on Monday, whilst prices in the UK were up as much as 35%. A German government spokesperson commented that the latest gas price surge was part of Putin's plan.

Key to my approach to markets is that they require political stability to thrive – hence the most remunerative markets tend to be found within the most stable nations. They tend to have robust and enforceable legal systems, solid financial infrastructure and a culture enabling transactions and risk-taking. That’s the key to understanding the fundamental strength of the City of London – centuries of stability.

All around the world, we are now seeing a rise in instabilities – triggered by supply chain breakdowns, the supply shocks in Energy and Food, and now wage demands. Nations are struggling with inflation, rising interest rates, higher debt service costs on borrowing, rising bond yields, currency weakness, and how to address multiple vectors of financial instability as they try to hold their financial sovereignty together.

It’s occurring at a time when we seem to have reached the lowest common denominator in the political cycle. That’s a critical problem – voters need leadership in crisis, and they can easily be fooled by populists.

Confidence in a nation’s political direction and leadership is one of the key components of the Virtuous Sovereign Trinity, my simple way of explaining how Confidence in a country, the value of its Currency, and the Stability of its bond market are closely linked. When they are strong – they can be very strong. Strong economies rise to the top.

But, if any one of the Trinity’s legs were to fracture, then the whole edifice could come tumbling down. Which is why we should be concerned sterling is down over 10% this year. It strongly suggests global investors have issues with the UK.

Key to my approach to markets is that they require political stability to thrive – hence the most remunerative markets tend to be found within the most stable nations.

The UK is a good example of what might go wrong. If confidence wobbles in the government’s ability to handle the multiple economic crises now upon us, particularly the rising tide of industrial unrest as workers demand higher salaries to cope with inflation or servicing the nation’s debt, then the UK’s currency and bond markets could come under massive pressure. Investors will demand a higher interest rate to account for the increasing risk inherent from investing in the UK, while the currency could tumble as investors sell gilts to buy less vulnerable more stable nations.

At least the UK is financially sovereign. We control our own currency. Sterling may weaken, but we can always print more to repay debt… Except that would probably cause a global run on sterling as confidence in the UK would further tumble. If the currency leg were to fracture, interest rates would have to rise, wobbling confidence further.

The Virtuous Sovereign Trinity sounds stable, but experience shows it can quickly turn chaotic if issues are not swiftly addressed.

Clearly, the UK has some current confidence “issues” regarding the incumbent political leadership. The growing perception that Boris is a “lame duck” magnifies internationally held concerns about how his government has failed to seize the opportunities (such as they were) from Brexit, doubts about energy and food security, and the apparent dither in policies are all perceived as reasons for sterling weakness and are another reason bond yields are rising as global investors exit.

While the UK’s debt quantum should be manageable – Italy is somewhat different. As part of the Euro, Italy is no longer financially sovereign. It has rules on Debt/GDP to observe (and ignore). But effectively Italy borrows in a collective currency it has no real control over. It has to plead with the ECB for the right to borrow money and will rely on the ECB to announce special measures to make sure its debt costs don’t turn astronomical. Without the ECB, Italy would be heading straight for a debt crisis.

That’s why ECB head Christine Lagarde is desperately trying to guide the ECB towards the establishment of anti-fragmentation policies to stop Italian debt instability leading to a renewed European sovereign debt crisis. Fragmentation means Italian bond spreads widening to Germany – the European sovereign benchmark. It’s a political issue because Lagarde is no central banker, but a politician sent in to lead the ECB to the inevitable compromise that rich German workers will pay Italians’ pensions.

In the USA there is an even larger political impasse developing. The US Supreme Court’s decision – by 4 old men and one catholic woman appointed by Trump – to deny women the right to control their bodies by undoing abortion rights highlights the increasingly polarized nature of US politics. Republicans, and their fellow travellers on the religious right, are delighted. Democrats are appalled.

US politics simply doesn’t work. All efforts by Biden to pass critical infrastructure spending have been stymied. There is zero agreement between the parties – each has destroying the other at the top of its to-do list, rather than rebuilding the economy. The result is increasing doubts on the dollar. It’s a battle the Republicans are winning by dint of managing to stuff the Supreme Court with its appointees. It’s no basis for democracy or market stability.

At the moment the dollar is the go-to currency, and treasuries are the ultimate safe haven. It could change. The world’s attitude to the US is evolving. The West may be united on Ukraine, but global support is noticeably lacking. 35 nations representing 55% of the global population abstained from voting against Russia at the UN. The Middle East and India see Ukraine as a European problem and a crisis as much of America’s making. As the West lectures the Taliban on schooling girls, the Republican party has moved the US closer to a dystopian version of The Handmaid’s Tale of gender subjugation.

As the World increasingly rejects America, then America will reject the rest of the World. Time is limited. The Republican Administration, run by Trump, or kowtowing to him, will likely pull the US from NATO and isolate itself. That’s going to become increasingly clear over the next few years. The dollar, the primacy of Treasuries… will leave a massive hole at the centre of the global trading economy.

It will be particularly tough for Europe. As we seek alternative energy sources, what happens when Trump 2.1 proves as pernicious as Putin and shuts off supplies?

The supreme court decision was clearly timed to come at the Nadir of this US political cycle – a weak president likely to lose the mid-terms in November – when the Roe vs Wade news will be off the front pages. It means the damage to the Republicans in the Mid-Term Elections could be limited – they will still make the US essentially ungovernable for the next 3 years.

If the US was a corporate, it would be a massive fail on corporate governance. But it’s not. It’s the current dominant global economy and currency. Politics and markets can’t be ignored.

In 2008 Central Banks bailed out the financial universe following the collapse of Lehman. They provided unlimited liquidity in the form of Quantitative Easing and Negative Interest Rate Policy to dodge a global recession and enable the longest bull market on record. In 2012 the ECB saved the Euro and Europe by doing “whatever” it took. In 2020 central banks stepped in to stabilise wobbling COVID struck economies with rate cuts and yet more liquidity.

Today? Central Banks are being assaulted on every front. Politicians are questioning their independence – blaming them for the effects of the sudden Ukraine War Energy and Food inflation spike. Markets are watching the bull market unravel and blaming Central Banks. Read any research on the market and it will cite “Central Bank policy mistakes” as the most likely trigger for recession, stagflation, and market collapse.

Financial professionals under the age of 40 have never known normal markets. They’ve learnt their trades in markets where Central Banks are expected to step in a stabilise markets, to prop up too-big-to-fail financial institutions, and keep interest rates artificially low, thus juicing markets ever higher. I reckon over half the market workforce – fund managers, bankers, traders and regulators – will never have encountered market conditions like those we’re about to experience as it all goes horribly and predictably wrong.

Thankfully, there are few old dogs like me still wagging our tails in markets. We’ve seen it all before. Proper market crashes, interest rates in double digits, mortgage rates that will make a millennial’s heart tremble, and inflation the likes of which we are now seeing again. But, even we don’t know what happens next. This time… it is different.

We can’t blame Central Banks for the war in Ukraine – that’s a classic exogenous shock. It’s a crisis the politicians really should have figured out, foreseen and prepared for. One of the prime duties of the state is security, and it’s the insecurity of energy and soon, food supplies, that have triggered the inflation shock.

The reality is exogenous shocks outwith central bank control have precipitated inflation in the real economy. But, let’s not kid ourselves: two factors successfully hid inflation for the last 12 years:

1. Most of the liquidity injected by central banks since 2008 flowed into financial assets (stocks and bonds), where price inflation was mistaken for investment genius. (It’s also generated massive wealth inequality between those that own stocks and those that don’t.)
2. In the wake of COVID, supply chains have unravelled. The Geopolitical Tensions now apparent between the West and China mean the end of the age of globalisation – and it was cheap Chinese exports that created the deflation that kept inflation artificially low during the twenty-teens.

In retrospect, the whole bull market of the Twenty-Teens looks increasingly false – a Potemkin village boom founded on overly cheap money, government borrowing and undelivered political promises. Abundant liquidity enabled the age of the fantastical – growth stocks worth trillions but profits measured in pennies, crypto-cons, SPACs and NFTs. Booming markets supported by accommodative central banks have spawned a host of consequences – few of which will prove ultimately positive.

Central Banks knew the risks from the get-go. They have been trying to figure out how to undo (or taper) the consequences of their monetary stimulus while maintaining the market stability critical for Western Economies. That has all suddenly unravelled at speed because of the inflation shock.

It’s the decisions taken over the past 14 years by Central Banks have led us to this critical moment in economic history. Since 2008 central banks have been using monetary experimentation to stabilise and control the economy and markets. And, as always happens, suddenly it’s turned chaotic. Its only now becoming apparent just how much these policies created massive market distortions, overturned the traditional investment narrative and caused the most massive misallocations of capital in global financial history at both the Macro and Micro levels.

Oops. 

Take a look at markets over the past 14 years and figure it out:

• The most speculative asset bubbles in history?
• Tremendous financial asset inflation on the back of ultra-low interest rates?
• Whole new financial markets like cryptocurrencies and NFTs emerging on the back of the broken monetary model – which will likely prove absolutely hollow scams.
• And the power of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) dragging in millions of inexperienced retail investors to meme stocks – where they are now likely to be skinned and gutted?

Oops again…

How did it go so wrong? The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 threatened a global depression. The problems were multiple – a dearth of bank lending (caused as much by draconian new capital regulations as risk aversion), economic slowdown, and incipient recession… Central banks were forced to act, and flooded the economy with liquidity in the hope it would stimulate growth.

It didn’t. It created market bubbles. Investors quickly realised the easiest way to generate returns was to follow liquidity. Corporate managements figured out the best way to improve their bonuses was to inflate their companies' stock price – not through carefully considered investment in new plants and products to improve productivity and profits, but by borrowing money in the bond markets to buy back their own stock. And that’s worked well…Not! All that money has now been lost by crashing markets, and they still have to repay the debt.

Again… Oops…

In Europe the 2012 sovereign debt crisis followed the banking crisis, triggering massive fears of imminent country defaults and the Greek debt crisis. The ECB did what it took and used monetary policy to advance billions to banks through Targets Long-Term Repos and other emergency measures… Very quickly banks and the market realised central bank liquidity was an arbitrage opportunity – if the Banks were buying bonds, buy more bonds to sell to them!

As a result, nations like Italy saw the cost of their debt plunge, allowing some of the most heavily indebted nations to continue borrowing… Yet there is no guarantee, and never will be, that German taxpayers will ever agree to pay Italian pensions. As the German terror of hyperinflation is raised, and Europe suffers stagflation, it's highly likely we will see new tensions across European debt arise. That’s why it’s a politician rather than a central banker running the ECB!

Guess what… Oops…

How did the Central Banks intend to undo the consequences of the distortion they created? Taper? Hah. We are passed that stage now. I guess we will never know how they planned to untie the knot they created...

The good news is chaos spells opportunity for smart investors!

On behalf of the team at The Smart Cube as a whole, our hearts go out to everyone affected by this ongoing conflict. Our thoughts are with the Ukrainian people.

On 24th February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale military operation in Ukraine. This followed months of hostile activity from the world’s largest country, which escalated on 21st February when Russia proclaimed the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, two regions in eastern Ukraine, to be independent and ordered troops to enter both.

In response to the invasion, nations from across the globe have imposed a range of sanctions on Russia. Britain, Japan and the US have sanctioned billionaires and major financial institutions with close links to Russia, while Germany has frozen the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project, which had been set to ease the energy price crisis.

With the end of the conflict not yet in sight, as countries around the world impose sanctions on Russia and peace talks continue with limited signs of progress, it appears that the crisis will have a major impact on commodity prices.

Prices of commodities set to rise in the short term

So far, the conflict has resulted in large-scale panic buying of key commodities coming from Russia and Ukraine, which has caused a sharp upward rally in commodity prices. An example of this can be seen when looking at nickel prices. As Russia accounts for 49% of world nickel exports, the Russia-Ukraine crisis has led to a shortage of the base metal, causing its price to spike. Further to this, the conflict has prompted short covering by businesses, including the Chinese group Tsingshan – the world’s largest nickel and stainless-steel producer. Short covering is the process of purchasing borrowed securities to close out an open short position at a profit or loss, while it also involves the purchase of the same security that was initially sold by the holder of the position. As such, this action has further contributed to driving the price of nickel up, with the London Metal Exchange forced to halt trading in nickel on Tuesday 8th March after prices surged 110% to top $100,000 per tonne.

Prior to taking a closer look at the expected price increases of commodities, it is worth mentioning that the following estimates have been calculated using a combination of a statistical price forecast model, in tandem with leveraging monthly and daily price data over the last 20 years. This has allowed for sensitivity analysis to take place, whereby the dynamic impact of similar conflicts and resulting sanctions on commodity prices can be evaluated – like the 2014 Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The expectation is that the continued military conflict in Ukraine is set to see the prices of a range of commodities increase sharply in the short term. For example, the prices of crude oil, palladium, platinum, and aluminium are in line to go up, due to Russia being a major producer and exporter of these raw materials. Looking at this in more granular detail, the price movement (between March 2022 and May 2022) of crude oil is anticipated to be between 10 to 12%, as Russia is the second-largest producer in the world, meaning there is the possibility of disruption to crude oil supplies. Adding to this, metal prices are also expected to surge, due to Russia playing a major role in the global mining of palladium (45% of global production), platinum (15%) and aluminium (6%). As a result of the continuing conflict, it is expected that the prices of these precious and base metals will increase by between 10 and 18%.

Further to this, the price of natural gas is anticipated to rise, as Ukraine is an important transit route for Russian natural gas flows from Europe. With Russia accounting for roughly 40% of the European natural gas supply, serious disruption to the supply of the energy product is a distinct possibility. This could see the price movement of natural gas increase from anywhere between 18 and 28%. Additionally, agricultural products are also expected to experience a spike in their prices, due to Ukraine being the “breadbasket of Europe”. In fact, Russia and Ukraine are major global exporters of both corn and wheat, accounting for an estimated 30% of global wheat exports. As such, the price of corn is expected to increase by 10 to 18%, while wheat is set to rise by 12 to 20%.

However, if Russia decides to bring its invasion to an end, or if Western countries introduce active initiatives in an attempt to stabilise energy prices, then the expectation is that commodity prices will fall significantly, returning to pre-conflict levels. For example, the prices of crude oil and natural gas have started falling on the back of the US announcing a record release of one million b/d from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next six months, in addition to The International Energy Agency (IEA) agreeing to release up to 60 million barrels from their respective strategic reserves. In the event of the conflict de-escalating, crude oil is expected to fall by a further 10 to 15%, while nickel is in line for a drop of between 13 and 17%. Nevertheless, at this moment in time, this scenario unfolding is difficult to predict with any certainty.

What can organisations do to ensure business continuity?

Firstly, it is imperative for companies to actively evaluate alternative suppliers to ensure business continuity. Businesses should be prepared to switch to or identify alternative sources for procuring essential products and services in the event of disruption due to a crisis. An example of this can be seen with the uncertainties Russian suppliers and bankers are having at present, which has resulted in Tata Steel seeking alternative markets for coal imports, choosing to look beyond Russia and instead purchase coal from other regions, such as North America. By having a range of different sources and suppliers, companies ensure that they are prepared in the event that the situation in Ukraine drags out, as they can easily purchase commodities through alternative avenues.

As well as this, businesses must continuously monitor the situation, in terms of the conflict itself, as well as the restrictions and sanctions being imposed. This allows organisations to stay up to date on the impact the crisis is having on the supply chain in light of the events taking place and plan for multiple possible eventualities. For example, companies can react quickly and raise the prices of their products if the price of the commodity they require for manufacturing has escalated significantly. Businesses can also brace for cost increases by allocating provisions in anticipation of this possibility, while they should also eliminate or freeze all non-essential spending.

Furthermore, there are a number of other actions organisations can take to prevent supply chain disruptions during such geopolitical events as the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Companies should liaise with suppliers to identify alternative payments methods, while they should also address immediate financial and cybersecurity concerns. This includes reviewing financial hedge positions in light of the volatile Russian and Ukrainian currencies, in addition to identifying and minimising vulnerabilities in cybersecurity.

To ensure continuity, it is vital for businesses to constantly monitor the situation as it continues to evolve and develop, while they must also actively evaluate alternative providers and distributors. By doing this, organisations will be able to limit the potential damage caused by supply chain disruptions during geopolitical conflicts, such as the one ongoing between Russia and Ukraine. 

As I write, all kinds of noise about possible "outcomes" are playing out across the airways. A Turkish brokered ceasefire or maybe an "exit-ramp" for Putin, including a "No-Nato Membership for Ukraine" promise and Crimea in return for an advance back to the previous borders. The brutal reality is Ukraine is being progressively flattened. Their troops are taking heavy casualties. Raw recruits will be thrown into the meatgrinder to frustrate the Russian advance, but how much time they gain is debatable. It is desperately sad and tragic, but what choice do they have?

The reality is predicting outcomes in Ukraine remains guesswork.

Yet, for all the uncertainty, the death, wanton destruction, and the rising refugee crisis, the first thing we've learnt following the Russian invasion is markets are apparently impervious to negativity and risk. That won't last forever. Reality has a nasty habit of catching up and biting hard.

Take a close look at the numbers underlying stronger stocks – volumes are weak and unconvincing. The recent bond slide and flattening curve speak of a nasty and unpredictable recession to come.

The uncertainty hitting markets is greater than I've ever seen. Whether it's the end of the QE market picnic, Central banks hiking rates, the rising risk of monetary and fiscal policy mistakes, the pandemic, the approaching cost-of-living shock about to crush consumers, inflation, recession, or possible stagflation, broken and rebroken supply chains, rising geopolitical instability, and the largest most bloody European conflict since 1945 with a not intangible possibility of nuclear war.

But, where's the panic? The markets seem to be thriving.

The market is not a rational beast. Prices represent what market participants believe rather than the economic actuality. Mr Market is simply an enormous voting machine weighing the hopes, beliefs and opinions of every single market participant.

The market does not measure actual reality or facts. At the moment – it is discounting any pain likely to come. The fact prices remain "euphoric" tells us participants hope for positive outcomes – despite the multiple tensions facing us – and are therefore taking buy-the-dip-risks rather than battening down for a possible storm.

Mr Market is simply an enormous voting machine weighing the hopes, beliefs and opinions of every single market participant.

Events trigger consequences, and how these will play out is frankly a guessing game. Ripples from Ukraine threaten to swamp the whole globalised marketplace.

It's what's happening below the surface, out of sight, that matters. It may take many months for the consequences of the war in Ukraine to really impose themselves on market sentiment. Russia's move on Ukraine shocked the West. It will impose massive costs. Long-term sanctions will cripple Russia – perhaps fatally because of its hopeless demographics, creating yet more instability.

The two immediate threats in plain sight are food and energy security. We are in for a long period of price instability in both.

Ukraine accounts for a significant portion of agricultural production. It is literally the 'Breadbasket of Europe' and regional emerging markets in terms of wheat, soya, and sunflower oil. Food prices will rise. Equally importantly, potential food shortages in Africa could trigger a new refugee crisis into Europe, which may be aligned today on Ukraine but could struggle with a new destabilising wave of migrants.

Europe will wean itself off Russian oil and gas, but that will not be an overnight transition which means long-term price instability. It's already clear the Gulf States are happy to play off Russia versus the West. They have been waiting since the oil shock of 1973 for an opportunity to play neutral and keep prices high. They are also very aware Europe can't rely on the USA for its energy security. In the next presidential election, it's looking increasingly likely a pro-Trump populist Republican party will trend isolationist and at the very least pivot away from Europe.

Europe has limited time to effectively rearm, secure its energy and organise its own defences. It can be done and the signals are encouraging increased European cooperation and an invigorated EU. The risk is how will Europe fare if a global recession comes on the back of broken Chinese rooted supply chains, an inflation spike, or a new refugee crisis?

There is clearly more at stake than just markets. The next few months could see threat levels decline. On the balance of probabilities, is that likely? Not really. Trying to imagine Putin apologising just isn't realistic.

At the core, the tensions boil down to how effectively the Liberal-democratic West can counter the threats of resurgent autocratic nationalism from China, Russia and the risks others play the opportunity to their best advantage. Crisis for one player is an opportunity for another. Hence the shift back into defence and energy stocks. If the big one is coming, let's not deny it, but prepare for it.

Russia, frankly, isn't even a player in the Game of Geopolitics anymore. They've broken themselves on Ukraine.

The force that balanced the tension twixt the autocratic East and the Liberal Democratic West since the last cold war was always commerce and the opportunity for poorer nations to raise themselves on the back of trade. It happened for China. The big threat from Ukraine is that it represents the end of globalisation. It seems to be happening as supply chains remain under pressure.

The big unknown is China. It clearly wants to internalise and continue to grow its economy, secure its borders, and expand its economic hegemony. It can do so in partnership with the West. Or it can choose conflict – which is what the Generals fear. That China will take the opportunity to engage in a land-grab on Taiwan and risk economic estrangement. But, based on what they've seen in Ukraine and the effect of Russian sanctions, we can hope they favour trade.

Russia, frankly, isn't even a player in the Game of Geopolitics anymore. They've broken themselves on Ukraine. The sanctions will leave its energy industry in tatters as expertise and spare parts dry up. It may remain a major supplier of global instability through cheap weapons, immoral mercenaries, and unpredictability, yet Putin's throw of the dice in Ukraine increasingly looks like a losing gamble. How he plays his last few cards to sustain his kleptocracy is the known unknown.

The immediate threat is Russian unpredictability. The long-term hope is China sees a better future as part of a post-Ukraine globalised economy, which is all back to guessing. What happens next?

Last week, stock markets fell globally in the wake of US President Trump's latest tariffs threats to China. Donald Trump threatened to put tariffs on an extra $200bn (£141bn) of Chinese goods, further fueling the prospects and worries of a trade war.

This week Finance Monthly set out to hear Your Thoughts on the potential for an international trade war, gaging the opinions of experts and professionals around the world.

We asked them: What do you think about this? How will this change things internationally? What might be the short-term reactions and impacts? What about the long term? How will you be affected? How will small businesses be affected? Who will benefit from what's to come? Is this a good strategy? What are the political and social repercussions?

Miles Eakers, Chief Market Analyst, Centtrip:

Investors are right to be concerned as Wall Street futures dropped by almost 2% following Trump’s threats to impose more tariffs. Any retaliation by Beijing is likely to fuel the escalating trade war with Washington, which will in turn have a negative impact on equities and increase risk aversion.

Investors are not the only ones troubled by the current situation. The world’s largest superpowers’ shift towards protectionism has global ramifications. International companies may grow less competitive due to tariffs and the cost of raw materials purchased overseas could rise by 10–20%. It’s highly possible that any further action from the US or China could put an end to the current 10-year bull market run.

Kasim Zafar, Portfolio Manager, EQ Investors:

An all-out trade war is unlikely and we believe this will be avoided in favour of mutually agreeable changes on both sides.

The world last entered trade wars on this scale early during the Great Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was entered into US law in June 1930, about 8 months after the “great crash”. There are mixed opinions on whether the tariffs added to the economic depression or only slowed down the ensuing recovery. But it is generally agreed the tariffs themselves were not the main cause of the Great Depression

Today there are few, if any, of the conditions that presaged the Great Depression. But the world is a different place today compared to the 1930’s. The most significant difference is the interconnected nature of global supply chains that have been built by companies in the post-War era. Abrupt changes along the supply chain in terms of physical supply or associated cost will have immediate impacts on the total costs of production. Companies are not charities, so if the cost of production goes up, so too will product prices on the shelf.

The impacts will differ between companies and across nations dependent upon:

• the specific tariffs enforced;
• the speed with which reciprocal tariffs are imposed, if at all; versus
• the speed with which companies can redirect their supply chains and adjust their customer demand bases; and
• the proportion of tariffs absorbed by companies within their profit margins to remain competitive against local and international peers

The UK runs a goods deficit of over £130 billion per annum of which about 10% is with the US directly. So for the average UK consumer, the direct implication of US originated tariffs on items we buy is fairly limited in scope. The impact of tariffs on things we sell is limited also with only about 10% of UK exports heading for the US directly. The bigger risk we face is the secondary impacts from companies and countries that are impacted to a higher degree:

• The tariffs would see a fall in global trade and excess production capacity around the world.
• This would undoubtedly be deflationary for the rest of the world and inflationary for the US.
• So in the short term, it could actually mean lower prices for UK consumers as companies try to boost demand for the excess capacity and high inventories by lowering prices.
• However, with the US representing about 20% of developed market trade, any significant drop in sales to this region will create severe negative economic effects elsewhere.
• This means companies would likely downsize in the face of lowered current and expected future demand. The interconnected nature of global trade means the impact of downsizing will ripple across countries.
• Jobs will be at risk and the UK will not be immune.
• Specific items that are the subject of reciprocal tariffs by the UK or EU towards the US would see price increases. Currently this appears to be focused on jewellery, whiskey and rear view mirrors, although orange juice, denim and motorcycles and are also in the firing line!

Carlo Alberto De Casa, Chief Analyst, ActivTrades: 

The trade war escalation is unsurprisingly scaring the markets. The main reason for this is actually the belief that this is only the beginning of the escalation, as China has already clarified that it will reply to US tariffs with its own. Of course, this could have many impacts. In the short term, US companies which are importing will have to pay more, while advantages for US producers will be positive, even if that’s a much smaller proportion overall. But what is scaring markets is definitely the long-term scenario, that the trade war will grow to affect more economical sectors.

This won’t only affect the big companies, it could also have a serious impact on smaller ones and retail consumers. A typical example to explain this is something like the beer can, the cost of which will rise due to the aluminum tariffs. The implications can be far wider than what you might originally think.

It is difficult to say whether this is a good strategy; we can surely affirm that this is a risky strategy as you can’t completely predict or control the effects it will have, especially in the long term. The ball is now firmly in the court of those who trade with America.

There’s little certainty that this will help drive the US economy. If this is the effect wanted by Donald Trump, then you have to consider that the tariffs which will be decided by other countries are what will drive the results. It could at best create jobs in one sector, but the additional jobs generated will likely result in a loss in other sectors. Overall, it’s hard to see this policy accomplishing its goals.

Bodhi Ganguli, Chief Economist, Dun & Bradstreet:

Rising protectionist measures from the US government are creating significant uncertainty for global businesses and adding to cross-border risks. After some optimism that the US hardline stance on tariffs was softening a bit, new announcements from the administration have re-ignited fears that the ongoing skirmishes could blow up into a full-fledged trade war, particularly between the US and China. The latest announcement came from President Trump on 22^nd June when he threatened to impose new tariffs of 20% on auto imports from the EU unless the EU removed tariffs on US goods. It should be noted that, some of these EU tariffs on US exports went into effect earlier the same day; these were retaliatory tariffs in response to US tariffs already implemented on steel and aluminum (most trading partners were exempted, except the EU, Canada and Mexico). Equity prices of major European automakers dropped immediately following the announcement, highlighting the intricacies of global supply chains and their dependence on smooth trade flows between nations. In fact, all major global stock markets have seen episodes of selloffs in the past few weeks in reaction to worries that trade restrictions are rising.

The latest round of proposed US barriers to free trade have come with a pronounced inclination by the US to move away from traditional norms of multilateralism based on the WTO principles, including measures specifically directed at longtime allies like the EU and Canada. This has the potential to spill over into other areas of geopolitical risk, and pose added headwinds to the global economy. While the extent of the EU retaliation is modest so far, other countries are stepping up or planning ‘tit-for-tat’ tariffs against the US. India just hiked tariffs on a selection of US goods, while similar Canadian tariffs are scheduled to come into effect on 1^st July. Of course, the biggest risk of disruption comes from the US-China spat; earlier the same week, China threatened to hit back with a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures after President Trump ordered his team to identify USD200b in Chinese imports for additional tariffs of 10% with provision for another USD200b after that if China retaliates. The global economy is still expanding; although divergences in policy are signaling desynchronization in the near term, it can still withstand some fluctuations in equity indexes. But the bigger underlying risk is that if the trade rhetoric does not die down, or if it becomes a significant headwind, stock markets will face sustained downward trends as investor confidence is impaired, eventually leading to a spillover into the real economy.

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

The financial services industry has witnessed considerable hype around artificial intelligence (AI) in recent months. We’re all seeing a slew of articles in the media, at conference keynote presentations and think-tanks tasked with leading the revolution. Below Sundeep Tengur, Senior Business Solutions Manager at SAS, explains how in the fight against fraud, AI is taking over as a dominant strategy, fuelled primarily by data.

AI indeed appears to be the new gold rush for large organisations and FinTech companies alike. However, with little common understanding of what AI really entails, there is growing fear of missing the boat on a technology hailed as the ‘holy grail of the data age.’ Devising an AI strategy has therefore become a boardroom conundrum for many business leaders.

How did it come to this – especially since less than two decades back, most popular references of artificial intelligence were in sci-fi movies? Will AI revolutionise the world of financial services? And more specifically, what does it bring to the party with regards to fraud detection? Let’s separate fact from fiction and explore what lies beyond the inflated expectations.

Why now?

Many practical ideas involving AI have been developed since the late 90s and early 00s but we’re only now seeing a surge in implementation of AI-driven use-cases. There are two main drivers behind this: new data assets and increased computational power. As the industry embraced big data, the breadth and depth of data within financial institutions has grown exponentially, powered by low-cost and distributed systems such as Hadoop. Computing power is also heavily commoditised, evidenced by modern smartphones now as powerful as many legacy business servers. The time for AI has started, but it will certainly require a journey for organisations to reach operational maturity rather than being a binary switch.

Don’t run before you can walk

The Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies infers that there is a disconnect between the reality today and the vision for AI, an observation shared by many industry analysts. The research suggests that machine learning and deep learning could take between two-to-five years to meet market expectations, while artificial general intelligence (commonly referred to as strong AI, i.e. automation that could successfully perform any intellectual task in the same capacity as a human) could take up to 10 years for mainstream adoption.

Other publications predict that the pace could be much faster. The IDC FutureScape report suggests that “cognitive computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning will become the fastest growing segments of software development by the end of 2018; by 2021, 90% of organizations will be incorporating cognitive/AI and machine learning into new enterprise apps.”

AI adoption may still be in its infancy, but new implementations have gained significant momentum and early results show huge promise. For most financial organisations faced with rising fraud losses and the prohibitive costs linked to investigations, AI is increasingly positioned as a key technology to help automate instant fraud decisions, maximise the detection performance as well as streamlining alert volumes in the near future.

Data is the rocket fuel

Whilst AI certainly has the potential to add significant value in the detection of fraud, deploying a successful model is no simple feat. For every successful AI model, there are many more failed attempts than many would care to admit, and the root cause is often data. Data is the fuel for an operational risk engine: Poor input will lead to sub-optimal results, no matter how good the detection algorithms are. This means more noise in the fraud alerts with false positives as well as undetected cases.

On top of generic data concerns, there are additional, often overlooked factors which directly impact the effectiveness of data used for fraud management:

• Geographical variances in data.
• Varying risk appetites across products and channels.
• Accuracy of fraud classification (i.e. which proportion of the alerts marked as fraud are effectively confirmed ones).
• Relatively rare occurance of fraud compared to the huge bulk of transactions; having a suitable sample to train a model isn’t always guaranteed.

Ensuring that data meets minimum benchmarks is therefore critical, especially with ongoing digitalisation programmes which will subject banks to an avalanche of new data assets. These can certainly help augment fraud detection capabilities but need to be balanced with increased data protection and privacy regulations.

A hybrid ecosystem for fraud detection

Techniques available under the banner of artificial intelligence such as machine learning, deep learning, etc. are powerful assets but all seasoned counter-fraud professionals know the adage: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Relying solely on predictive analytics to guard against fraud would be a naïve decision. In the context of the PSD2 (payment services directive) regulation in EU member states, a new payment channel is being introduced along with new payments actors and services, which will in turn drive new customer behaviour. Without historical data, predictive techniques such as AI will be starved of a valid training sample and therefore be rendered ineffective in the short term. Instead, the new risk factors can be mitigated through business scenarios and anomaly detection using peer group analysis, as part of a hybrid detection approach.

Yet another challenge is the ability to digest the output of some AI models into meaningful outcomes. Techniques such as neural networks or deep learning offer great accuracy and statistical fit but can also be opaque, delivering limited insight for interpretability and tuning. A “computer says no” response with no alternative workflows or complementary investigation tools creates friction in the transactional journey in cases of false positives, and may lead to customer attrition and reputational damage - a costly outcome in a digital era where customers can easily switch banks from the comfort of their homes.

Holistic view

For effective detection and deterrence, fraud strategists must gain a holistic view over their threat landscape. To achieve this, financial organisations should adopt multi-layered defences - but to ensure success, they need to aim for balance in their strategy. Balance between robust counter-fraud measures and positive customer experience. Balance between rigid internal controls and customer-centricity. And balance between curbing fraud losses and meeting revenue targets. Analytics is the fulcrum that can provide this necessary balance.

AI is a huge cog in the fraud operations machinery but one must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Real value lies in translating ‘artificial intelligence’ into ‘actionable intelligence’. In doing so, remember that your organisation does not need an AI strategy; instead let AI help drive your business strategy.

With the ongoing spat between the United States and China, which seems to be only getting uglier, Katina Hristova explores the history of trade wars and the lessons that they teach us.

Trade wars date back to, well, the beginning or international trade. From British King William of Orange putting steep tariffs on French wine in 1689 to encourage the British to drink their own alcohol, through to the Boston Tea Party protest when the Sons of Liberty organisation protested the Tea Act of May 10 1773, which allowed the British East India company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying any taxes – 17^th and 18^th century saw their fair share of trade related arguments on an international level.

Boston Tea Party/Credit:Wikimedia Commons

Trade wars were by no means rare in the late 19^th century. One of the most infamous examples of a trade conflict that closely relates to Donald Trump’s sense of self-defeating protectionism is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (formally United States Tariff Act of 1930) which raised the US already high tariffs and along with similar measures around the globe helped torpedo world trade and, as economists argue, exacerbated the Great Depression. As a response to US’ protectionism, nations across the globe began striking each other with an-eye-for-an-eye tariffs – countries in Europe put taxes on American goods, which, understandably, slowed trade between the US and Europe. As we all know, the Depression had an impact on virtually every country in the world – resulting in drastic declines in output, widespread unemployment and acute deflation. Even though most countries began to recover between 1932 and 1933, the world was hit by World War II shortly after that. In 1947, once the war was over, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established - in an attempt to regulate international trade, strengthen economic development and hopefully, avoid a second global trade war after the one from the 1930s.

Schoolchildren line up for free issue of soup and a slice of bread in the Depression/Credit:Flickr 

Another more recent analogy from the past that could be applied to the current conflict between two of world’s leading economies, is the so-called ‘Chicken War’ of 1963. The duel between the US and the Common Market began when European countries, feeling endangered by US’ new methods of factory farming, imposed tariffs on US chicken imports. For American poultry farmers, the Common Market tariffs virtually meant that they will lose their rich export market in West Germany and other European regions. Their retaliation? Tariffs targeting European potato farmers, Volkswagen campers and French cognac. 55 years later, as the Financial Times reports, the ‘chicken tax’ on light trucks is still in place, predominantly paid by Asian manufacturers, and has resulted in enduring distortions.

President Trump may claim that ‘trade wars are good’ and that ‘winning them is easy’, but history seems to indicate otherwise. In fact, a closer look at previous examples of trade conflicts seems to suggest that there are very few winners in this kind of fight.

For now, all we can do is wait and see if Trump’s extreme protectionism and China’s responses to it will destroy the post-World War II trading system and result in a global trade war; hoping that it won’t.

There has been a lot of recent news regarding trade tariffs, as America and China impose a number of greater tariffs on a wide range of each other’s goods. Is this all political showboating though, or do they actually have an impact?

Trade tariffs were introduced to increase the ease and competition, while decreasing the costs of shipping goods abroad. This has been a great source of growth for international business and globalisation, yet there are concerns that it isn’t always beneficial to everyone involved.

The Role of Trade Tariffs

According to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), trade tariffs are customs duties or taxes on merchandise imports. This provides an advantage to locally produced goods over those which are imported therefore, while those sourced from abroad help raise greater revenues for governments. Countries can set their own trade tariffs and change these when desired, though this can result in tense political situations when tariffs are called into question.

Trade tariffs are used to protect developing economies and their growing industries, while they can be used by advance nations too. These are a few common roles for trade tariffs:

• Protect jobs: Imported goods can threaten domestic jobs and industries, especially if they’re produced cheaply abroad. Domestic firms may then cut jobs to save on costs, with higher unemployment leading to political unrest. Trade tariffs can be used to create a more level playing field.
• Consumer concern: Especially when importing foodstuffs, if one country is worried certain products may be contaminated they can levy a tariff to reduce the risk.
• Political retaliation: When countries believe trading partners haven’t been fair, played by the rules or there are other political differences, they can increase tariffs. This could mean the other nation then retaliates by levying tariffs too. If tensions ease off, then it’s likely any increases will be reverted.

There are many examples throughout history where trade tariffs have been used in many such ways, and they’re still being implemented as political weapons today. That alone suggests that they do work.

Price Impact

In the simplest terms, trade tariffs increase the price of imported goods. It means that domestic companies don’t need to increase their prices to compete, though this does allow some businesses that wouldn’t exist in a more competitive market to continue running. Without trade tariffs it would be something of a free border for goods, that could see high levels of unemployment in some countries with low production levels.

Trade tariffs can also be used to help limit volume too, by raising them to tempt consumers to stick with domestic goods and slow down the amount being exported if businesses are priced out. The higher the tariffs the less likely businesses in overseas countries are likely to export.

Benefits of tariffs can help governments raise revenues, especially in times of need, while for domestic companies they benefit from less competition. When tariffs are levied many domestic businesses can really benefit in these times. However, for consumers and businesses that rely on importing certain materials or goods, such as steel for production, the price can become inflated due to tariffs. There are constant shifts in benefits, with consumer consumption often lowered with higher tariffs for the short term, for example.

America’s Trade War

The changing global economy means that businesses need to implement key strategies to deal with such shifts, as explained by RSM. A great example of how the global economy is changing is with a step towards deglobalisation, best demonstrated by President Trump’s ideas of protecting and improving US manufacturing by adapting tariffs and effectively starting a trade war with China.

This started in early March 2018 when the USA imposed a 25 per cent tariff on the imports of steel entering the country. Such a move was designed to protect the US steel industry but has impacted upon the stock market and China, along with over 1,000 more tariffs, which is the USA’s biggest trade partner.

However, history has shown that trade wars for the USA aren’t always successful, with one in the 1930s excelling the Great Depression to increase unemployment levels to 25 per cent of the country. Whether this latest attempt works or not remains to be seen. Either way, businesses need to employ flexible strategies to prepare for many of the globalisation issues which could affect or destabilise the world’s economy in the future.

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!

Following a weekend at the Oscars, a frozen UK and a tax based feud between Europe and the US, Finance Monthly hears from Rebecca O’Keeffe, Head of Investment at interactive investor on the latest global markets news.

Global equity markets are fragile, and investors are wary as the increasing rhetoric over the weekend on tariffs and a potential escalation of a full-blown trade war make it possible that things could get very ugly very quickly. History has not been kind to investors during periods of protectionism and recent tweets suggest that President Trump is leaning in rather than stepping back from threats to unleash a global trade war.

This all makes it very difficult for investors to know what to do. Any global company could instantly and significantly suffer if its principal products suddenly become subject to retaliatory trade restrictions. Downside risks are therefore widespread and elevated, and it will be tricky to find sectors or companies that offer a genuine safe haven against such risks.

The major headache that the EU faces on trade is not the only issue facing European investors this morning as Italy looks to have taken a step to the right and moved towards populism and change. The complexity of the Italian voting system makes it very difficult to establish what happens next and when, but neither of the anti-establishment Five star movement or League parties are an attractive option for markets or the euro. Against this negative backdrop, investors can only be grateful that German coalition talks finally reached a conclusion, with Angela Merkel managing to hold on to her position as long-serving Chancellor, albeit in a fragile alliance.