IMF approves $367 million disbursement to Ghana after fourth review
Ghana's finance ministry said earlier in a post on X that the country will receive a $370 million disbursement from the IMF.
The new funding brings the West African nation's total disbursements under the arrangement to around $2.3 billion, the fund said.
The IMF approved a $3 billion, three-year bailout for Ghana in May 2023 that helped stabilise Ghana's economy and led to a Fitch rating revision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
These two stocks have DOUBLED since I tipped them. Here are two more British firms you should invest in before they soar, reveals our money guru
The UK has been on a losing streak for too long. But the clouds seem to be lifting and Britons are beginning to win again. The Lionesses roared to victory in Europe, the British and Irish Lions dominated the Australia rugby test series and the International Monetary Fund says the UK will be the G7 's third fastest growing economy this year and next.
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Iceland under pressure as supermarket price war intensifies
Rapid growth at Iceland has ground to a halt as the frozen food chain comes under mounting pressure in the face of an intensifying supermarket price war. The retailer has told bondholders that underlying profits rose just 0.6pc to £317.6m in the year to the end of March, compared to a 24pc jump the prior year. Revenues were largely flat at £4.2bn over the year, although its 2024 financial year – when sales jumped 6.6pc – was boosted by an additional trading week. Stripping these figures out, sales were up 3pc this year on prior year. The slowdown is understood to have come as Iceland pushes to keep prices lower as supermarkets battle to attract and retain shoppers. Earlier this year, Asda kicked off a price war in an attempt to stem years of declines. Its new chairman, Allan Leighton, has vowed to use a 'war chest' to fund price cuts, improve availability of products and refresh tired stores. The company said this would mean profits would take a 'material hit'. Tesco responded by saying its profits would fall as much as 14pc this year with plans to invest £400m in price cuts. To avoid losing shoppers to rivals, Iceland has been stepping up its programme of multibuy promotions, where customers can buy bundles of products for less than if they bought them separately. This meant that while the number of items it sold last year increased by 5.3pc, it did not see an rise in the value of its sales. Credit rating agency, Fitch, said shoppers continued to turn to Iceland for value 'despite heightened competition'. Its market share has remained flat at between 2.3pc and 2.4pc over the past five years. Fitch added: 'We expect Iceland's product offering to remain competitive for UK food consumers with weaker spending power.' However, the credit ratings agency raised concerns over Iceland's profitability, suggesting the supermarket chain would have to invest in price cuts this year at a time when it is battling higher costs. It said the supermarket, which employs more than 30,000 people, would face 'momentary profit pressure', publishing forecasts suggesting underlying profits could dip this year. Fitch said: 'The company, along with other UK-based retailers, will be hit by the rise in National Insurance and minimum living wage contributions from [this year], which we estimate will result in an additional cost of £50m.' Iceland chairman, Richard Walker, said earlier this year the National Insurance raid had 'added greatly to the cost of business', ranking the Labour government a 'six out of 10' for its performance in office. It followed earlier efforts to downplay the hit. Last year, after Rachel Reeves's Budget, Mr Walker said companies should stop 'wallowing' and 'complaining' about the tax raid. Mr Walker, who had been a donor to the Tory party before switching allegiance to Labour, said last December: 'The Government isn't going to change its mind. It was a tough Budget, but we adapt.' The expected profit crunch comes after Iceland's chief executive, Tarsem Dhaliwal, in April said the company was bracing for surging food costs. Speaking to industry publication. The Grocer, Mr Dhaliwal said his biggest concern was rising prices being imposed by its suppliers. He said: 'The reality is that we have to be conscious of the fact our suppliers are going to pass the costs onto us, literally straight away. We can't absorb all that, I don't think any retailer can, so there's going to be food inflation.' At the time, Mr Dhaliwal said that Iceland would be battling to 'remain competitive', adding: 'Consumers might end up with less items in their basket, still spending £10 but on less items.' Already, food inflation is running at around 4pc, according to figures from the British Retail Consortium, with increases in the price of staples such as meat and tea fuelling the higher level.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Reeves must break her manifesto pledge to save Britain from ruin
UK business leaders are perennially a gloomy lot, but it takes a special kind of disenchantment to make them quite as gloomy as they are now. According to the latest survey by the Institute of Directors, they are gloomier than they were even after the Brexit referendum, the onset of the pandemic, and the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. The main cause of that gloom is easily diagnosed; above all it is the near certainty of further tax rises in the autumn Budget three months from now. This hangs like a sword of Damocles over all gainful activity, with consumers already tightening their belts and firms delaying investment decisions until they know just what's coming down the road at them. Granted, you wouldn't think this on reading the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest assessment of the UK economy, published a week ago. This said that economic recovery was already well under way, with growth projected at 1.2pc for 2025 before gaining further momentum next year. Moreover, said the IMF, the Government's 'fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability'. This they most certainly do not, as anyone with half an eye on what's really going on in the UK economy would know. The IMF has a habit of being overly generous to key member states, and this would appear to be a case in point. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, might have written the report herself. The reality is a great deal different. The Chancellor's tears in the House of Commons just days after the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under her by abandoning £5bn of welfare cuts told their own story of the pressure she's under, whatever the ultimate cause. Sadly, the Labour leadership has no one to blame but itself. There have been two key errors in policy. First was the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation, including value added tax, income tax and National Insurance. Second was a set of fiscal rules which though they initially allowed a considerable loosening in borrowing constraints now act like a pro-cyclical straitjacket which is forcing the Government into growth destructive measures. The Chancellor calls herself an economist, but it is clear that she doesn't properly understand the often pernicious way in which public policy interacts with commercial and consumer behaviour – or if she does, she seems to have decided to deliberately ignore it. The root of the problem is the rule that obliges the Government to balance the books on day-to-day spending in five years' time. Nobody knows what the situation might look like five years from now; your guess is as good as mine. But the rules nevertheless require the Office for Budget Responsibility to project five years into the future and adjudicate on whether the rule is met or not. The last time the OBR passed judgment, Reeves was given the thumbs-up, but only by the narrowest of margins. Things have deteriorated a lot since then, making it highly likely that the rule will be broken when the OBR next adjudicates. The obvious solution is for the Government to grit its teeth and make meaningful cuts in public spending. Sadly, this does not seem to be an option with the present lot. Despite a huge majority, Downing Street repeatedly caves at the first sign of rebellion. Large scale cuts in spending might in any case further entrench today's economic stagnation. With the big sources of taxation ruled out, Reeves is instead left casting around in the foothills of the tax system for revenue that might fill the gap. Her problem is that virtually all such options tend to evoke strong behavioural responses and therefore end up raising far less money than static costing suggests. Many of them also tend to be growth destructive, witness the exodus of non-doms and millionaires since the last tax-raising Budget. Reeves says she is strongly focused on growth in all she does, yet she has locked herself into a set of fiscal rules which oblige her to do the exact opposite. I imagine that she will continue trying to paper over the cracks in the autumn Budget with lots of itsy-bitsy revenue-raising measures which further discourage wealth creation. Her rules are non-negotiable, she insists, making it hard to see how she can credibly wriggle out of them. Presumably it would be a resigning issue. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Truss debacle is that it has made her successors almost completely beholden to the bond markets. Their terror is in some respects justified; lack of progress towards meeting the balanced budget rule is already causing distress in the gilts in the market, where yields have risen sharply and are now the highest in the G7 – higher even than the US, where fiscal profligacy has run riot, and higher than both France and Italy, both of which have larger debt burdens than the UK. Credit risk is becoming a real issue for investors in UK gilts, adding further to the Government's already crushing debt servicing costs. These are forecast to be more than 8pc of all public spending this financial year, making them bigger than the Government's entire capital spending budget. The Bank of England might mitigate the consequent waste of public money by discontinuing its ruinous programme of quantitative tightening. To be still selling off the stockpile of gilts accumulated during the era of quantitative easing looks hard to justify in current circumstances. But it wouldn't be enough to make any more than a marginal difference. When it comes to fiscal consolidation, the Government has shown itself incapable of sticking to its guns on at least three occasions now – once with the winter fuel allowance and then twice with welfare cuts. This has undermined confidence in Downing Street's commitment to almost any form of fiscal correction, with announced initiatives quickly reversed in the face of backbench pressure. The sensible thing for Reeves to do would be to abandon the current mishmash of fiscal rules, and replace them with a single, easily understood commitment to limiting the rise in overall spending to less than the rate of economic growth, subject to the operation of automatic stabilisers at times of economic contraction. She should also break the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation. Cuts to National Insurance by the last government were always unaffordable given the already perilous state of the books. This could still be used as political cover for reversing them or raising one of the other big sources of tax. These two measures combined would give the markets greater confidence in fiscal sustainability, and thereby take the pressure off bond yields. This would in turn reduce debt-servicing costs, and once wealth creators were certain they are no longer a target, potentially create a virtuous circle of growth and improvement in the public finances. Will the Chancellor take my advice? Don't hold your breath.
