OPINION: Government must see pension investment as game changer for growth

UK businesses are facing many headwinds, but revitalising economic growth can help them overcome barriers to successful expansion. This will require higher long-term investment in infrastructure, housing, alternative energy, scale-up companies and modern technologies, without which corporate dynamism and growth will remain elusive.

Government policy seeks to increase spending on social benefits, the NHS and public services, to improve lives for many. However, paying for these, given the country’s fiscal deficit, has necessitated tax rises in the last two Budgets – and these will actually reduce economic activity and have been damaging to business confidence.

Of course, the impacts of the pandemic, higher energy costs and Brexit have hit public finances, so the Chancellor does not have unlimited spending powers. But tightening fiscal policy will not revive business prospects, especially as monetary policy is also relatively tight, because the Bank of England’s Quantitative Tightening program pushes up bond yields, which offsets reduced short-term interest rates.

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

British businesses want and need more long-term capital – preferably equity rather than just more debt. Government cannot provide sufficient funding but there is no need to despair. There is a potential solution waiting to be grasped, that could bring in billions of pounds of long-term capital, at no extra Exchequer cost.

Government could harness the power of pension assets as the game-changer that British businesses need to kick-start a new era of growth.

A radical change to the way the UK’s generous pension tax reliefs operate, could revive the flow of long-term investment capital. Recent figures show taxpayers spend around £80 billion a year on tax and National Insurance reliefs, to help people build private pensions. These are enormous sums, yet not a penny has to be invested here. And most of the money is used to buy overseas assets, which help boost other countries and not Britain.

If the Government were to require at least, say, 25% of all new pension contributions to be invested in UK assets, such as equities, real estate, infrastructure or small and unlisted companies, as a condition of receiving the taxpayer contribution to pensions, billions more could begin flowing into UK markets again.

This could help unwind the doom loop that has engulfed British equity markets. As UK pension funds have pulled out of equity markets in general and UK equities in particular, London Stock Markets have suffered lower trading volumes, reduced capital flows and higher corporate funding costs. Many good British companies have felt forced to buyback their own shares and increase dividends, instead of investing to expand or modernise their business operations. British companies have suffered a significant relative de-rating, higher corporate funding costs and many great businesses being snapped up on the cheap or moving abroad.

Instead of backing Britain, our pension investors have consistently reduced UK holdings, in an apparent vote of ‘no confidence’ in Britain. Over the past 20 years or so, most private pension funds have cut equity exposure from over 70% with most in UK markets, to below 20%, with only a small allocation to UK equities. Meanwhile, average bond exposure has increased from around 20% to over 70%.

The UK is a global outlier, as other major countries’ pension funds have significant overweightings in their home markets, including Australia and Japan with around 30% of their portfolios in domestic stocks.

By requiring at least a quarter of all new contributions to be invested in Britain, in exchange for the tax reliefs, the Government would be using existing expenditure to incentivise a nationally vital policy objective. Despite expressed concerns about fiduciary duty from many multi-national and passive fund management houses, there is clear justification for such a policy of incentivisation rather than mandation.

Pension funds will not be forced to increase UK exposure. If trustees or managers wish to invest more than 75% overseas, they can still do so, but they would not have the tax reliefs added to contributions. It is their choice, but of course it would also change the assessment of forecast future returns.

Most trustees or individuals would realise that the generous reliefs should more than outweigh any forecast UK underperformance over time. And the adoption of environmental, social and governance (ESG) restrictions on pension portfolios are not justified by short-term performance considerations, but are considered to protect against future problems. Equally, by reviving the regular flow of long-term pension assets into UK assets, trustees would be helping their members ultimately live in a better country in retirement.

Such reform could usher in a new dawn for British businesses, boosting our markets, investment and growth. This could be a win-win for the country, setting up a virtuous circle to reverse the doom loop of pension fund selling. A re-rating of UK assets can reduce corporate funding costs and attracting long-term investment capital from other investors.

What’s not to like?

Baroness Ros Altmann is an economic, investment and pensions policy adviser and former UK Pensions Minister