Fact check: FTSE 100 had its best day in five months in January
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said the FTSE index had had its best day 'for a couple of decades' during her time as Chancellor.
She said: 'There was a front page in one of the papers about a record increase in bond yields in one day – you know the chancellor should resign or whatever.
'And then a week later it was a record fall in bond yields and best day for the FTSE for a couple of decades – wasn't on the front of any papers.'
Ms Reeves' comments came at around 38 minutes and 50 seconds into the recording.
Evaluation
Neither the FTSE 100 or any of the other largest FTSE indices have had their best days in decades since Rachel Reeves became Chancellor.
The FTSE 100 had a better performance in April 2024 than it has had on any single day since Ms Reeves took the job. The FTSE did at one point reach an all-time high under Ms Reeves's chancellorship.
The facts
What is the FTSE?
The FTSE can refer to one of several different indices of shares. Those indices include different groups of companies, for instance the FTSE 100 – the main FTSE index which makes up around 80% of the value of the London Stock Exchange – includes 100 of London's biggest listed companies.
There is also the FTSE 250, which covers the following 250 largest listed companies, the FTSE 350 – which is the 100 and 250 indices added together – and the FTSE All-Share.
There are also many much, much smaller FTSE indices. It is highly unlikely the Chancellor would be referring to these.
It is most likely that the Chancellor was referring to the FTSE 100, but it is impossible to say for sure, so the other indices must also be examined.
What day was the Chancellor referring to?
The Chancellor was likely referring to the FTSE 100's result on January 17 2025. That day the FTSE 100 gained 114.3 points – a strong performance for the index, and the best performance in January.
A week earlier markets for UK Government bonds – also known as gilts – had seen yields shoot up.
Did the FTSE see its best day in 'a couple of decades'?
None of the main FTSE indices have had their best days in decades during Ms Reeves time as Chancellor.
The FTSE 100 gained 114.3 points on January 17. That was a strong performance, however that was only its best performance since August 7 2024 when the index added 140.2 points.
August 7 was therefore the best day for the FTSE 100 during Ms Reeves's time as Chancellor. But that was also not the best 'for a couple of decades' – it had gained more on April 21 2024 when the index rose by 145.2 points.
What about other FTSE indices?
The FTSE 250 gained 567.3 points on January 15 2025. That was the best day for that index during Ms Reeves's chancellorship, but not the best day for decades. The index had a better day – adding 622.4 points – on November 14 2023.
The FTSE 350's best day during Ms Reeves's chancellorship was August 7 2024 when it gained 72.9 points. That was the best day since March 21 2024 when it rose by 76.8 points.
The best day for the FTSE All-Share since Ms Reeves became Chancellor was August 7 2024 when the index rose by 71.81 points. That was the All-Share's best day since March 21 2024 when it closed the day up 74.97 points.
There are also several other FTSE indices, however the four above are by far the most important. It would be very unusual for the Chancellor to be referring to any of the other indices.
What might the Chancellor have been referring to?
It is possible that the Chancellor misspoke. The FTSE 100 has reached the highest score in history during her time in Number 11 Downing Street.
The Treasury was asked to clarify the Chancellor's comments, but had not replied at the time of publication.
Links
Halifax – FTSE Aim 50
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The public sector malaise means Reeves's plans are not credible
Rachel Reeves took to the airwaves on Sunday to sell her spending review to a sceptical public facing tax rises to pay for her latest splurge. The Chancellor remains oblivious to the central flaw in her plans, which is the failure of public sector productivity to improve even while more money is being poured into services. Getting less for more is the precise opposite of what had been promised by Labour. An analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows the scale of this crisis. Public spending by 2028 will be nearly 25 per cent higher than before the pandemic. It will be the equivalent of £24,190 per adult in today's money, almost £3,000 more than in 2020. The extra cash and staff provided to deal with Covid are now baked in. The NHS is getting yet more money even though productivity is 20 per cent below pre-pandemic levels with little sign of improvement. The CPS observed that 'the state is becoming a combination of health service, benefit office and debt collection agency – with all other functions squeezed to compensate'. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which measures the Treasury's claims against economic reality, has begun a review of productivity amid concerns that all GDP predictions will need to be recalibrated. Ms Reeves may be forced to knock at least £20bn off her forecasts to fall into line with independent productivity assessments. The OBR's conclusions will shape the Chancellor's budget in the autumn and will require her to raise taxes or cut spending to stay within her own rules. Unless the Government urgently finds a way to shake the public sector out of its torpor, the entire economy will suffer.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone
Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall mandarin saying that 'the government has still not made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create' (Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set, 12 June). He has a point, not wholly answered by Rachel Reeves. It's the vision thing, and the ability to communicate it. It's about describing what Labour is for, in a general sense, beyond a list of policy deliverables. Growth is important, but only as a means, not an end. 'Securonomics' is interesting, but has no public resonance. If people are now unsure what Labour stands for, it is because the task of ideological self-definition has been neglected. This is unlike 1997, which was preceded by a process of rethinking that produced New Labour and the 'third way'. Something similar is needed now. There is a rich tradition of social democratic thinking in Britain to draw on, including RH Tawney's argument for equal access to what he called 'the means of civilisation' as the basis for a common culture. Pragmatism is valuable, but it is not enough. An argument should be constructed around the three pillars of security, opportunity and community that would pull together all that the government is trying to do, and the kind of Britain it wants to create. And in a way that people might WrightLabour MP, 1992-2010 I agree with Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah that the focus on investment alone will not work (Has Rachel Reeves made the right choices? Our panel responds to the spending review, 11 June). New public investments are pointless if the operation and maintenance of what already exists isn't adequately funded. After years of austerity, the quickest and surest way to raise GDP and improve public services is to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we already have. The highest priority should be to relieve the financial pressure on those delivering services, especially our severely cash-strapped local authorities. This will deliver more broad-based and higher economic growth quickly, in contrast to the central allocation of investment funds to mega-projects that will take decades to deliver results. Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and education, well maintained roads and pleasant amenities. Properly funded local authorities can encourage higher private investment by delivering that. Unfortunately, they are instead expected to implement an expensive and disruptive reorganisation and find the money to pay higher minimum wages and national insurance while receiving a settlement that implies a real-terms cut in funding. Labour needs to think FosterChelmsford According to Rachel Reeves, the NHS has been 'protected' and will receive 'a 3% rise in its budget' (Spending review 2025: who are the winners and losers?, 11 June). But will it in practice? In a recent meeting with the chief executive of the Nottingham University hospitals trust, he told us that he had been instructed to make £97m of cuts in this financial year. This would mean leading to the loss of about 750 jobs and the closure of some wards. Further, these massive cuts are the trust's contribution to the even bigger ones imposed on the integrated care board for our county: a £280m reduction in the provision for all local health services. So, which is it really, protection and a 3% rise, or enormous cuts?Mike ScottChair, Nottingham & Notts Keep Our NHS Public Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
