UK Chancellor Reeves Set to Review ISAs Within Weeks, FT Reports
The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is preparing to launch a review of the market for Individual Savings Accounts within weeks, the Financial Times reported Saturday.
The consultations on possible changes to Britain's ISA regime are set to begin in the coming weeks across London's financial district, with a Treasury paper expected to be launched at Reeves' Mansion House speech in July, the newspaper cites people familiar with the plans as saying.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reeves's spending priorities leave little wiggle room
The words Spending Review may not instantly quicken the heart rate of many, but what we hear from the Chancellor Rachel Reeves will have an impact on what your life is like in the UK in the coming years. It could be one of the defining moments between now and the next general election, as the government divvies up spending for the health service, defence, schools, the police, prisons, courts and much else. After plenty of words about the government's priorities, we will get a sense of the numbers. And yes, a sense of the winners and losers. We can expect ministers to claim that much of what it has done in its first year in office has been about "fixing the foundations". That is code for the tricky stuff: think those big and in many places unpopular tax rises, such as the increase in employers national insurance contributions. There is also a keen awareness that rarely has a new government suffered such a big whack to its popularity so fast. Yes a whopping majority, but just 34% of the vote last summer, and they have gone a long way backwards since. Little wonder we can expect the chancellor to claim "this government is renewing Britain" but also acknowledge "I know too many people in too many parts of the country are yet to feel it". Baked into what we can expect to hear is an emphasis from Reeves of the importance of stability. As an illustration of that, the chancellor recently returned from a meeting of G7 finance ministers in Canada, where she, not yet a year in office, was the second longest serving attendee around the table. It is a volatile world. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and others have pointed out, the key decision above all others that we await in the Spending Review is how much money is allocated to the health service. The NHS makes up such a big chunk of day-to-day government spending - about 40% - that how well or otherwise it does shapes everything else. This has long been the case, particularly because it is often also gets a proportionately more generous settlement than others. And, on top of that, what has changed more recently as well the government's desire to spend more on defence too and to do so in an era of low growth. If we put all these things together, you have an explanation for why other budgets will be squeezed. Or, as Paul Johnson, the outgoing director of the IFS puts it, "this will be one of the tightest spending reviews in modern times, outside of the austerity period of the early 2010s". For much of the last week, the government has been leaning into the elements of its plan that it feels most comfortable selling: the long term, so-called capital spending on transport and nuclear power. What gets squeezed and by how much is the detail we are waiting for. Labour MPs have been invited in to see the chancellor and be talked through the plans. The aim, as one person put it to me, was to give them "a song to sing", things they can talk about when they are asked what the government is up to. Plenty of Labour MPs I talk to welcome the long-term spending but are also acutely conscious of how bumpy politics feels right now and how important it is they are seen to deliver and deliver quickly. "The problem with talk of 'a decade of national renewal' is so much of this stuff is long term and so we could get half way through the decade and then lose the election," one MP reflects. Folk in the Treasury are aware of this critique and particularly those who might point to some squeezed day-to-day budgets and claim we are experiencing what they see as austerity. It has led those around Reeves to declare a "war on graphs" or, as Laura Kuenssberg reported the other day, a desire to point to graphs that help illustrate a key part of their argument in taking on this criticism. They point out that when you combine day-to-day spending with capital spending, the graph is going up - the opposite of what some might describe as austerity. "This is about four trillion pounds of spending," one senior figure tells me. "We reset the foundations. This is stage two: setting things out. Then, we hope for the delivery." Let's see. The political and economic backdrop is perilous: an electorate without much patience, limited economic growth and a wildly unpredictable international landscape, not least President Trump. Given what the government has chosen to prioritise - the NHS and defence - and the rules it has set itself with the aim of projecting economic competence, it leaves the chancellor with little room for manoeuvre. Spending review now settled, says Downing Street Reeves admits some will lose out in spending review IFS says tough public spending choices unavoidable
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Negative Rates Return to Switzerland as U.S. Faces Higher Yields. What Does it Mean for Bitcoin?
As President Donald Trump's trade war threatens to upend the global economy, an interesting divergence has emerged that could potentially grease the bitcoin BTC bull run. The divergence in consideration is the elevated yields on U.S. Treasury notes that threaten to compound the fiscal issues, and the renewed negative flip in yields on Swiss government bonds. According to data source Swiss government bonds with maturities of up to five years offered negative yields at press time, with the two-year yield at -17.8 basis points. On the contrary, similar-duration Treasury notes offered yields over 4%. The divergence is the bond market's way of telling us that the trade war will have different impacts on various countries, depending on their trade profiles. Those running trade surpluses, such as several European countries and China, will face disinflation or an outright deflation, while countries like the U.S., which import more than they export, will see an increase in price pressures. The specter of deflation in European nations and China could put pressure on their central banks to ease monetary policy aggressively, likely leading to increased capital deployment into alternative investments like bitcoin. Both the Swiss National Bank and the European Central Bank have already cut rates in recent months. Meanwhile, analysts have said that higher yields in the U.S. and the record public debt could accelerate the shift away from U.S. assets and into alternative assets. "The last time this happened [Swiss yields turned negative in late 2019], it preceded coordinated global easing, repo market seizures, and ultimately pandemic-era QE. Now, it likely reflects a mix of deflationary pressure, eurozone contagion risks, and capital rotating into monetary sovereignty safe havens amid sovereign stress elsewhere," pseudonymous analyst EndGame Macro said on X. It's worth noting that bitcoin's 2020-2021 bull run from $5,000 to over $60,000 was characterized by a record amount of negative-yielding government debt worldwide. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' good for US consumers?
The bond market is sending Washington an unmistakable message: The U.S. budget deficit is a problem we can no longer ignore. Yet, the GOP budget bill seems to do precisely that. If the ballooning debt persists, long-term interest rates will stay elevated and could continue to rise. While politicians celebrate tax cuts, bond investors, the people and institutions lending money to the U.S. government, are far less enthusiastic. They're demanding higher returns to make U.S. debt attractive: The 30-year Treasury yield briefly surged past 5% in May. This milestone hasn't been reached since 2007, with the exception of a quick spike in 2023, when high inflation sent the entire yield curve higher (the 10-year yield also breached 5% during that period). With the 10-year yield hovering around 4.4% today, the spread between the 30-year yield and 10-year yield is near 0.5%—much higher than it was in 2023—implying the market is pricing in significant risks for the very long term. Range says these aren't just fleeting worries; they reflect deep-seated concerns about long-term inflation risks, fiscal sustainability, and the future value of long-dated dollar assets. We've always believed credit markets can be a more reliable economic indicator than equity markets. During the tariff uncertainty earlier this year, credit spreads barely widened while equity markets gyrated wildly. The credit markets called it right when they didn't overreact to tariffs, unlike equities. They remained stable in a time when other market indicators did not. But now those same credit markets that rarely overreact are flashing warning signals about something far more fundamental: our deficit spending. The new budget bill includes several pieces of popular legislation, such as extending tax cuts, eliminating taxes on tips, and pre-funded tax-advantaged savings accounts for newborns. But this bill in its current form is also projected to add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The response from bond investors has been unforgiving, reflected in rising long-term interest rates: 30-year yields were up 18 basis points in May, more than 22 times the average monthly change over the past year. Here's what this means for actual Americans trying to buy homes or fund their businesses: Mortgage rates are climbing: The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hovered close to 7% in May, peaking at 7.02% on May 27, up from 6.62% in mid-April. Anyone waiting for rates to come down is facing an uncomfortable reality—deficit concerns are keeping them elevated. Corporate borrowing gets expensive: When the government needs to issue more debt to fund spending, it crowds out private borrowers. As debt becomes more expensive thanks to an oversupply from the government, companies find it harder and more expensive to access capital, which slows hiring and economic growth. The Fed can't save you: The Federal Reserve controls short-term rates, but long-term rates are set by market forces. Even if anticipated Fed rate cuts materialize in the second half of 2025, the combination of the tax bill and uncertainty “sets the stage for a higher term premium,“ according to the Institute of International Finance. This means rates on mortgages, auto loans and student debt, may stay elevated even as the Fed cuts. Let's walk through the mechanics of how this gets ugly: When deficit spending rises (the government spends more than it makes), the Treasury must issue more debt to fund operations. More supply of bonds means investors demand higher interest rates (yields) to absorb all that debt. Higher yields make the debt more expensive to service, which requires ... more borrowing to pay the interest. Eventually, this forces painful choices: Either slash spending (austerity that nobody wants, similar to what countries like Greece and Italy went through after the Great Financial Crisis), or have the Fed step in to buy bonds with printed money. That second option leads to currency debasement and persistent inflation—exactly what we saw in the 1970s, dubbed 'The Lost Decade' for U.S. markets. Back then, Fed Chair Arthur Burns caved to political pressure from Nixon to lower rates despite rising deficits and increasing inflation. The result? A lost decade where equity markets went nowhere, the dollar was significantly devalued, inflation spiraled out of control, and American consumers watched their purchasing power erode year after year. What made it particularly brutal was that people couldn't escape through traditional investments—stocks were flat, bonds got crushed by rising rates, and cash lost value to inflation. While today's robust economy and the Fed's strengthened independence distinguish our current situation from the 1970s, that era serves as a stark reminder of how deep economic damage can run when policymakers chase short-term political gains at the expense of lasting economic stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio would hit nearly 200% by 2055 if current tax provisions are extended, up from today's ratio of about 120%, according to the Yale Budget Lab. To put that in perspective, only Sudan and Japan currently have debt burdens that high. National debt interest payments made up the second largest spending category in the past fiscal year's Federal Budget: That's a 13% slice of the $6.9 trillion budget, with only Social Security costing more. That's right—we spent more on debt interest than on our entire Defense or Medicare budgets. Given this administration has talked explicitly about lowering long-term rates, there's hope these red flags will prompt policymakers to come together and address the rising deficit. We've done this before. In the 1990s, policymakers on both sides of the aisle worked to cut spending, strategically increase tax revenues, and implement pro-growth policies to address growing deficit concerns. The result: By FY1998, the U.S. budget was in surplus for the first time since 1969, and surpluses continued through fiscal year 2001. This tax bill, as currently written, is not a step in the right direction—while it does cut some Medicaid and food stamp spending, the potential revenue losses from its tax cuts far outweigh these savings. Now is the time for policymakers to take the deficit seriously. We're not in crisis yet—the economy is still healthy, unemployment is low, and that gives us agency: While it's always hard to cut back on spending, it becomes much more painful to do it when the economy is hurting. Acting now, from a position of strength, gives us the flexibility to make thoughtful changes rather than being forced into drastic measures later. Real deficit reduction would require the kind of politically toxic medicine that Washington has avoided for decades: fewer tax breaks, lower spending on widely used programs, or both. It's a long, uncomfortable process that involves telling voters hard truths about fiscal reality rather than promising easy wins. This environment makes diversification crucial. Not all markets face the same pressures: International exposure makes sense: Interest rates and deficits aren't rising everywhere at the same rate as we're seeing domestically. Having exposure to other markets can provide a hedge against U.S.-specific fiscal risks. Equities still have a role: The S&P 500 is a nominal asset that can perform well during inflationary periods. People get scared when they see equity markets react to hot inflation data, but over longer horizons, equities can serve as an inflation hedge. Short-term bonds look attractive: If you can stay short on duration—meaning bonds that mature in a few years rather than decades—you could earn attractive yields much higher than averages we've seen in almost two decades. If long-term interest rates continue to go up, the price of short-term bonds won't fluctuate as much, so your principal will face less risk of losing value. Tax cuts might sound appealing, but 7% mortgage rates and elevated corporate borrowing costs aren't. The credit markets are essentially telling Congress: Do better on deficit reduction, or consumers will pay the price through higher long-term interest rates. This isn't about politics—it's about mathematics. The bond market doesn't care about party affiliation; it cares about sustainable fiscal policy. Right now, the numbers don't add up, and interest rates reflect that reality. For investors and consumers, the message is clear: Prepare for a higher-rate environment that may persist longer than many expect. The easy money era is over, and fiscal discipline matters more than ever. This story was produced by Range and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
