UK cuts stock market red tape in bid to aid Chancellor's growth plans
It comes ahead of Rachel Reeves' Mansion House speech to financial bosses, where she is expected to launch a series 'Leeds Reforms' aimed at the financial sector, focusing on a strategy of less onerous rules for firms rather than reduced risk.
Over the past year, Ms Reeves has called on regulators to slash red tape in order to help drive the Government's growth agenda, with hopes that accelerated growth can help support its spending plans.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed it will introduce a suite of measures to lower costs for UK businesses looking to secure investment.
Companies that are already listed on London's stock markets will not need to publish lengthy prospectuses in order to issue more shares and raise funds in most cases, the FCA said.
New rules will also halve the time it takes between initial documents being published and an IPO (initial public offering) to list on the London Stock Exchange.
It comes amid a dearth of new listings on the stock exchange, while a raft of firms have also opted to switch from London to rival international stock markets.
Finance firm Wise said last month that it plans to shift its primary stock listing to the US due to stronger investment opportunities across the Atlantic.
The FCA said companies will also now be able to issue corporate bonds to retail investors more easily, while a new public offer platform will help smaller growth companies raise cash.
Simon Walls, executive director of markets at the FCA, said: 'These bold shifts promote innovation, lower costs and enable a broader investor base for growing businesses. They are the latest in a programme of reforms shifting the balance from pre-emptive checks to market disclosures.
'Our capital markets are world-leading.
'They're our economic engine, and we want to keep them roaring in support of sustained growth and prosperity for the whole country.'
On Tuesday, the Chancellor will also reduce restrictions on lenders to allow some banks and building societies to offer more high loan-to-income mortgages to help more people buy a first home.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Soaring asylum costs threaten aid budget, watchdog warns Labour
Immigration is never off the news agenda these days, as Brits remain concerned about the influx of people to the country while the cost of living crisis and housing pressures only seem to worsen. Last week Sir Keir Starmer sealed a 'one in, one out' migrant returns deal with France's President Emmanuel Macron which some number-crunching suggested is a little more akin to an, er, 17 in, one out set-up. The Labour lot have other borders-related problems on their plates too, however, as an independent watchdog has warned that the cost of supporting asylum seekers is set to absorb a whooping one-fifth of the gutted aid budget. Crikey! After Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in last month's spending review that the aid budget would be slashed – from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent by 2027 – the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has today raised concerns about ballooning refugee costs. Under international aid rules, a portion of the costs of an asylum seeker's first year in the UK qualifies as official development assistance and therefore comes out of the aid budget. As such, the watchdog has also warned about soaring costs of housing asylum seekers in the UK – with the price tag rising from £628 million in 2020 to a staggering £4.3bn in 2023. The surging cost of asylum provision leaves a fraction (0.24 per cent) gross national income for overseas development, the lowest amount of cash available for poverty reduction and humanitarian assistance for 50 years. Another Live Aid, anyone..? By the watchdog's figures, the UK spent three times as much aid per refugee compared to other major European countries in 2023. Perhaps, the report suggests, it's got something to do with 32,000 asylum seekers living in expensive, taxpayer-funded hotels. Well, Reeves has more on this, too. In her spending review, the Chancellor promised to stop using hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029 – claiming the move would save £1bn. The Home Office will instead look to increase the capacity of sites like the Wethersfield RAF base in Essex. Problem solved? Mr S isn't so sure. Quizzed by a House of Lords Committee last month whether he believed the government would succeed in their intention to stop using hotels, independent chief inspector of borders and immigration David Bolt replied: Frankly, I do not think that it will be achieved… There is simply not sufficient housing stock to be able to deal with the sorts of numbers that are in the system… It is really challenging. Oh dear. It would be putting it mildly to say that the slashing of the UK's aid budget has not gone smoothly. Reeves's announcement prompted the immediate resignation of Anneliese Dodds, the minister who was actually responsible for international aid – and former PM Gordon Brown unleashed a scathing tirade about the move during a recent speech in London. Will this latest watchdog warning persuade the government to better tackle the holes in the asylum system? Watch this space…
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Business news live: Rachel Reeves to address taxes and pensions in Mansion House speech
Tuesday brings Rachel Reeves ' Mansion House speech, with the chancellor expected to delve into pension reform and plenty more besides. There has been a push in some quarters for the chancellor to rip up fiscal rules limiting spending, which has been rejected by the government, and to bring in a wealth tax, which has not. It's not expected that ISAs will be a key focus now, with reform expected to wait until further discussions have taken place, but tax changes for businesses may still be on the agenda along with other initiatives as the government chases economic growth. Elsewhere, bitcoin has hit new highs of late and the FTSE 100 performed well on Monday - in contrast to other places in the stock market as tariff threats continue and a deal between the US and the EU appears no closer.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Is the treasury hinting at tax rise wiggle room?
Darren Jones, chief secretary to the Treasury, is a fastidious minister who chooses his words carefully. So I was struck by what he said Monday morning about the pledges on tax his party made in its 2024 election manifesto. He said the promise meant: 'Not increasing the headline rate of income tax or employee national insurance and not to increase the headline rate of VAT. That was a very clear promise coming into the election.' The thing is that's not what the manifesto says. These are its words: 'Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.' As you can read, the only reference to 'rates' is in respect of income tax. In relation to national insurance (NI) and VAT, the manifesto just says those taxes won't be increased. Now I won't rehearse again whether Labour breached its manifesto pledge by pushing up employers' NI (though the just-exited head of the IFS, Paul Johnson, says in the latest Rest is Money podcast that the hike in employers' NI was a blatant manifesto breach). I am interested in Jones talking about not increasing the 'headline rate of VAT'. That is because he may have inadvertently opened a window on Treasury thinking about how to raise perhaps £20bn or so in the autumn budget that may be needed to fill a hole in the public finances, to restore Reeves's fiscal rules headroom. The question is what Jones means by the 'headline rate'. Does he just mean the 20% most of us are conscious of because it applies to so many items, or is he also referring to the 0% on food and the 5% on energy (there are also other lesser categories where the rates are 5% or nil)? The point is that the chancellor could cut the main rate of VAT to, say 18%, and raise that kind of money by eliminating the vast categories of our spending that incur nil or 5% VAT. To be clear, the politics for Starmer and Reeves of putting up the price of food and energy when living standards remain squeezed would be difficult. It would seem to contradict Labour's manifesto promise not to put up costs for 'working people'. But it is striking that Jones' words were about the headline rate (singular) of VAT, rather than ruling out an increase in the scope and burden. He also made the distinction that Labour's working people's pledge in the manifesto relates to 'payslips', not indirect taxes like VAT. All of which means such a VAT rise is in play, unless and until Jones, Reeves, or Starmer tell us otherwise.
