China's central bank sets up new financial stability committee
In its mid-year work summary, the People's Bank of China (PBOC) said it will focus on preventing and resolving key financial risks, supporting local government financing platforms in debt resolution, and managing risks in key regions and institutions in an orderly way.
It will further strengthen risk monitoring, assessment, and macroprudential management, it said.
The PBOC will continue to implement an "appropriately loose" monetary policy in the second half of this year, use various monetary policy tools to keep liquidity ample and guide financial institutions to sustain reasonable credit growth.
The central bank will ensure the financing needs of Chinese trade-related firms, and maintain the flexibility of the yuan exchange rate, it said.
The PBOC also pledged to push yuan internationalisation "in a steady and prudent" manner, expand the yuan's use in trade, strengthen its role as a financing currency, and optimise policies for currency pools and overseas listings of domestic firms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Will buying a flat in London land me with a huge tax bill in America?'
Receive free, personalised tips on how to improve your financial situation, for free. Here's how to apply or fill in the form below. Despite being born in the UK, Elizabeth Hopkinson, 25, felt little connection with the country for most of her life. A dual citizen with a British father, she was raised in a town outside Boston, Massachusetts before coming to the UK in 2023 to study. She says: 'I always just thought it was a random fun fact that I happened to be born somewhere else. But I spent the summer after uni in London and just really loved the city.' She continues: 'Where I'm from is really sleepy. I love that part of the world, but it can be isolating. Life is really centred around cars, so sometimes you feel a bit alien if you try to walk from place to place. I love that in London you get the hustle and bustle but it's also not too hard to find pockets of quiet and peace. It's special to have both in a city.' Ms Hopkinson, who is fascinated by how people live in urban environments, now works as a city planner for a London council, earning £37,000 a year. At the moment she is happy renting but eventually wants a place of her own. She plans to invest £400 a month for about 10 years in the hope of saving enough for a house deposit either in the US or the UK. 'I'm in the extraordinarily lucky position of expecting some help from my parents when the time comes, but I'll also be contributing my own savings.' She already has £6,000 in emergency savings in a cash Isa and a $16,000 (£11,800) investment pot in the US, earmarked for a sabbatical in a few years. She knows she wants to invest according to her social values – for instance, avoiding fossil fuels – but otherwise she's unsure how to get started investing in the UK. 'I spent some time during uni trying to become more financially literate and learning about different options for saving and wealth building in the US. But things are a bit different in the UK – it feels like I'm starting from scratch.' On top of this, Ms Hopkinson wants some advice on how to invest tax-efficiently as a dual citizen. 'I don't pay taxes in the US because I don't earn enough, but as a US citizen who lives abroad, I still have to file taxes. I don't know if the same thing applies to returns on investment or how that works.' Annie Hughes, partner at Blick Rothenberg As a US citizen who has been living in the UK for some time, Ms Hopkinson is subject to tax on her worldwide income and gains in both jurisdictions. However, the US/UK Double Taxation Agreement works to assign the 'primary' right to taxation – and if implemented correctly with careful timing of tax payments, Ms Hopkinson shouldn't suffer double taxation. Being a dual US/UK taxpayer is complex and, when making investments, both the US and UK tax consequences need to be considered. We'll need to review each of Ms Hopkinson's income sources separately. Ms Hopkinson earns £37,000 annually and will pay UK income tax through Pay As You Earn (PAYE). While the income should be reported in the US, Ms Hopkinson will receive a credit for the UK taxes suffered. No additional US tax will be due. Alternatively, Ms Hopkinson may wish to use the foreign earned income exclusion on her US filings. This exempts the first $130,000 (£95,000) of employment income for those who are resident in a foreign country for the whole tax year. Given Ms Hopkinson's situation, this will likely be beneficial. Income and gains from her investments will be reportable in both jurisdictions. In the UK, the first £1,000 of interest income and £500 of dividend income outside of an Isa will be tax-free, as Ms Hopkinson is a basic rate taxpayer. Given the level of investment, it's likely no UK tax will be due. With no tax paid in the UK, US tax could bite. If the foreign earned income exclusion is used to exempt employment income, Ms Hopkinson will have her 'standard deduction' available – $15,000 for 2025. This deduction, available to all US taxpayers, reduces the amount of income subject to tax. As such, Ms Hopkinson may not have US or UK tax due on this investment income. As investment income grows, Ms Hopkinson should be aware that timely UK tax payments are essential to ensuring a credit in the US for UK taxes. As no withholding is applied to investment income, this means paying tax in advance to HMRC, aligning payments with the calendar year that income and gains arise. While Ms Hopkinson is a UK resident, HMRC would not give a credit for US taxes suffered, except some tax suffered on US dividends. Any investments held in the US should be reviewed to ensure they have 'reporting' status in the UK, otherwise income tax can be applied upon sale. Growth within an Isa is tax-free in the UK. However, they are not tax-free investments in the States. As UK tax rates are higher than the US, suppressing Ms Hopkinson's overall tax liability by using Isas is still sensible tax planning. Ms Hopkinson should be aware that US tax may be due on any income and gains, which will impact the return on investment. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a whole raft of rules to dissuade US taxpayers from investing in non-US passive investments. Holding non-US passive investments can lead to penal tax rates and additional reporting requirements in the US; what the Isa holds should be carefully considered. A lifetime Isa would avoid these complications, as the funds sit in cash. However, the 'top up' payment will be taxable in the US. If Ms Hopkinson returns to the US, she can manage her days in the UK to become non-UK resident. Ms Hopkinson should consider her social security position, which will depend on the length of the move. Darius McDermott, managing director at Chelsea Financial Services Starting to invest in your 20s is one of the most powerful financial decisions you can make. Every year you delay means missing out on the compounding growth that turns steady monthly contributions into a much larger sum over time. By committing £400 a month for a decade, Ms Hopkinson is putting time firmly on her side. The eventual size of her pot will depend on market performance, but to illustrate the possibilities: investing £400 each month for 10 years could give her around £53,000 if she averaged a 2pc interest rate a year, roughly in line with a high street savings account. If returns averaged 5pc – close to long-term global equity averages after inflation – she might expect about £62,000. In a strong market, with 8pc average annual returns, achievable but with higher volatility, her pot could reach £73,000. These are estimates, but over a decade, a well-diversified, equity-focused portfolio has historically had a strong chance of positive returns. Using a stocks and shares Isa will also help Ms Hopkinson keep more of those gains free from tax. Diversifying her money across different regions, sectors and companies reduces the risk that a single poor performer drags down her portfolio. Given her timeframe and risk appetite, starting with a 100pc equity allocation is reasonable, but gradually shifting into lower-risk assets such as bonds or cash as she nears her goal will help protect her gains when she needs them most. Charges are also important. Passive trackers typically cost around 0.1pc a year, while active funds average 0.75pc. While trackers offer cost efficiency, an investor prioritising social value may prefer an active fund with more rigorous ESG (environmental, social and governance) screening and the ability to engage directly with companies to improve standards. Active strategies can also offer more targeted exposure to smaller companies or specialist sustainability themes. Given the complexity of US tax rules for UK-based investments, you should speak with a US-UK cross-border tax specialist before making any decisions. The right advice now can prevent costly mistakes later. With discipline and diversification, Ms Hopkinson's £400 monthly investment could grow into a meaningful deposit – and she'll have built it in a way that aligns with her principles. If she sticks to the plan, compounding will work in her favour.
Time Out
an hour ago
- Time Out
This African country could be getting a massive new high-speed rail network
Sure, in Europe and Asia, high-speed rail is booming, but Time Out reported recently that huge plans for such railways to connect three major Moroccan cities were also in the works. Now, another African country is looking to take huge infrastructure leaps, and it just got one step closer to making those goals a reality. The country in question? That would be Nigeria, where on Tuesday August 12, a syndicate of construction companies and developers, De-Sadel Consortium, brought a high-speed rail proposal to the government. Set to be funded by the Asian Development Investment Bank (a China-backed institution, which is one of the largest of its kind on the planet), it's projected to cost a staggering – wait for it – $60 billion. According to Newsweek, the railway could stretch to 2,500 miles and the first phase of the project will connect the cities of Lagos, Aduja, Kano and Port Harcourt, with journey time between those first two cities slashed from 12 hours to a mere three. If approved, this first phase (which itself will cost an estimated $55 billion) will commence sometime in the next few years, once it has passed environmental authorisations, reports Ecofin Agency. 'The rail line is from Lagos to Abuja, to Kano, and from Abuja to Port Harcourt. So this is a very great work that the government has done. The federal government of Nigeria, through the ICRC, approved the outline business case,' said De-Sadel Consortium CEO Samuel Uko. 'And the next step now was for us to submit the proof of funds to the government, which we just did. So I believe in the shortest possible time, Nigeria will start enjoying high-speed rail in Nigeria.' So, while this project is still awaiting approval from the Government of the Federation, and there's no clear timeline for its completion yet, it all sounds like an exciting development for the region. Stay tuned for more updates.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reeves's inheritance tax plans are performative nonsense
It's hard not to feel some pity for Rachel Reeves. Her party and her own promises have boxed her into an impossible position. The idea was that the mere presence of a calm – and broadly sane — Labour Party would mean that 'stability' would return automatically. It turns out that maths and economics don't quite work this way, and she has found herself with a three-pronged conundrum. First, she cannot cut government expenditure at all. Even attempting to marginally trim the rise of our unaffordable welfare state will prove to be unpalatable to her party's backbenchers. Labour's client base of voters tend to hover around the public sector or rely on handouts so, politically, spending will have to go up. Second, the party only got into power because you exuded some vague commitment to economic prudence. It promised to get borrowing down. Break this pledge and the markets will kill them. Third, in the heat of battle Labour conjured up a barely comprehensible piece of campaigning verbiage that it would not raise tax on 'working people'. This proved to be just about adequate to get most of its spokespeople through a three or four minute interview on television or radio during the election campaign, but the Government must not be seen to break this pledge. Given this trifecta of economic nonsense, Ms Reeves faces a serious day-to-day problem. How can she raise some more revenue to make it look that you are even half-serious about balancing the books? The latest wheeze seems to be to tighten up inheritance tax rules. This, we are told, will only affect the rich, will mean that those with the broadest shoulders bear even more of the increasing state expenditure burden and could help to generate a smidge of 'fiscal headroom'. Such a move would be a nightmare on almost every level. Death duties are just about the worst sort of tax you can levy because they have virtually none of the features that a sensible tax should exhibit. They are complex, they are avoidable, and they are difficult to collect. The inescapable truth is that if you are to levy a tax on someone's estate at the moment of their passing, you need to monitor how they dispose of their assets in the time leading up to it. If you can give away your assets on your deathbed just before you take your last breath, the scheme won't work. This is why we have the seven-year rule. Anything you transfer in these seven years before death is considered – at some level – to be part of your estate. Although few of us know the exact time we will meet the Grim Reaper, many can take a guess. As you hit your seventies or eighties, it might be a good time to start divesting your assets to those you wish to receive them. You might not get your timings bang on the money, but you can take a fair guess. You can give away £3,000 a year to any individual without incurring IHT, so start doing so. You can probably shuffle other things in the direction of your descendants too. If you have a box of fancy jewellery that has been handed down over a generation or more, make sure this box finds its way to your children before you die. There's probably no paperwork, so no easy recourse for the HMRC. Finally, if you're super-rich – worth, say, ten million or more – set up a range of elaborate trusts and companies that are intended to financially assist your beneficiaries, but don't advertise this as the obvious motive. Attempting to tighten any of these rules may be politically performative but it won't raise many beans. Currently, IHT accounts for less than 1 per cent of government income. Even if you could get this to 1.1 per cent or 1.2 per cent, which is unlikely, you have not seriously moved the fiscal dial. The idea of the tax authorities attempting to monitor Christmas gifts given by a parent to their child years before the former's death is as unpleasant as it is unrealistic. HMRC can't even operate a functional telephone enquiries system at present. Benjamin Franklin was right when he said the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. But a civilised and sane society should try to keep the two entirely separate.
