investment

Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/menu.inc).

A Financial View of Labour Markets

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/10/2020 - 7:19am in

We are used to thinking of workers as free agents who sell their labour in a market place. They bid a price, companies offer a lower price and the market clearing rate is somewhere between the two. Free market economics, pure and simple. 

But actually that's not quite right. The financial motivations of workers and companies are entirely different. To a worker, the financial benefit from getting a job is an income stream, which can be ended by either side at any time. But to a company, a worker is a capital asset. 

This is not entirely obvious in a free labour market. But in another sort of labour market it is much more obvious. I'm talking about slavery. 

Yes, I know slavery raises all sorts of emotional and political hackles. But bear with me. I am only going to look at this financially. From a financial point of view, there are more similarities than differences between the slave/slaver relationship and the worker/company relationship - and the differences are not necessarily in the free worker's favour. 

So, let's look at our slave labour economy. The purchase of a slave is a capital purchase in exactly the same way as the purchase of plant. The carry cost of that asset is the upfront purchase amount depreciated on some reasonable basis, plus the present value of the expected cost of maintaining that asset over its lifetime (food, shelter, medical costs), plus the present value of exit costs (funeral expenses). The exit cost can be avoided by selling the slave before death if there is a secondary market in nearly-dead slaves. The slave can "go wrong" (become ill and therefore unproductive) and need fixing, which may be a greater cost than the value of the slave - an eventuality for which the company might wish to take out insurance. But unlike a free worker, the slave can't voluntarily leave and can't be sacked without incurring a capital loss. Once purchased, the only way of eliminating the carry cost of the asset is to sell the slave, and that may be for considerably less than the purchase price.

Therefore the company will only buy the slave if the present value of the anticipated future income stream from the slave's productive labour exceeds the cost of carry. As with all capital purchases, estimating future income streams is informed guesswork, and much depends on the company's confidence about the future. If the company is confident that the slave can be productively used far into the future, they are likely to buy. But if the economic outlook is bleak, and perhaps the future of slavery is uncertain, they are not likely to buy slaves. They will use free workers instead.

You see, the main difference between buying a slave and employing a free worker is the up-front capital expenditure. A free worker is still a capital asset but it is, if you like, leased rather than owned. The carry cost is recruitment costs (if any), plus the present value of remuneration over the anticipated period of employment including benefits and taxes and the present value of anticipated exit costs (redundancy, pension payments). We would expect that the remuneration package for a free worker would be more than the cost of maintenance for a slave, and exit costs may also be quite a bit more - but in a difficult labour market this isn't necessarily the case, as I shall explain.

The important point, from a company’s perspective, is that up-front capital expenditure is far less. So when companies wish to hoard capital, and are worried about the future, free workers are a much better option than slaves. Free workers can be recruited at little cost and, often, dismissed at little cost - particularly if they were recruited on a casual, temporary or self-employed basis. And their remuneration stream can be limited to payment for the work they actually do, because the responsibility for ensuring that they have food and shelter doesn't rest with the company (since it doesn't own them).

In a difficult economy where there is considerable competition for jobs, free workers can end up being paid less than the maintenance cost of a slave. This has actually happened at various times in history - Steinbeck's depiction of the plight of migrants from the American mid-West in the Great Depression immediately springs to mind, but there are numerous other examples of worker remuneration falling well below the cost of living, resulting in starvation. When jobs are scarce, companies are likely to be less benign to free workers than they would be to slaves - after all, buying a slave is an investment, whereas a free worker on a temporary contract is only as useful as his current production and is not a long-term commitment. We would do well to remember this. 

Of course, there might be a very deep and liquid market in slaves, in which case companies could buy and sell slaves as required to meet operational needs. There would still be up-front capital cost, but for short-term use this might be netted out with forward sale contracts, and there would then be little difference between free workers and slaves - in fact slaves would be preferable because they can't resign and the company has complete control over their deployment. Or there might be agencies that provide slaves for particular purposes on a just-in-time basis - perhaps to cover peaks and troughs in production demand, or to cover skills shortages. There might be slaves with specialist skills that earn fees for their owners through being sent out to provide expertise to client companies. And companies could outsource some functions to slave farms, perhaps in a different country. Please tell me how any of this differs materially from the free labour market? 

Now, of course, we don't have a slave economy. We have a free labour market. Or - do we? Read all of the above again, substituting "robot" for "slave". And then tell me why it is that the wages of free workers are falling and there is huge growth in temporary, casual, self-employed and zero-hours contracts. 

When companies are hoarding capital and worried about the future, it is not in their interests to invest in plant , which is what robots are. Companies' outlook is essentially reactive and short-term, so they want a reactive, short-term workforce. They don't want to undertake the capital expenditure required to automate. They don't want to invest in workers long-term either, because training and development is also a capital expense. And they don't want to wait for full productivity: they want to buy in workers who can "hit the ground running", hence the impossible requirement for young people entering the workforce to have "experience". However you look at this, there are structural problems in the labour market caused by companies' short-term outlook and lack of confidence about the future. And the UK's highly flexible labour market encourages this, at the expense of economic stability and people's well-being.  

For at least the last decade, and probably for much longer, the major problem with the UK economy has been failure of corporate investment. The reasons for this are unclear: there may be a lack of profitable investment opportunities, and since the financial crisis there has undoubtedly been a lack of business confidence and a shortage of demand for goods and services. But if we erode employment protection and encourage growth of unstable, short-term and poorly-paid jobs, we actually make matters worse.

Despite the fears of modern-day Luddites, investment in robots doesn't seem to have significantly displaced investment in people. The truth is that companies have been investing in neither people nor robots. Instead, they have churned an increasingly insecure and impoverished - though nominally "free" - workforce. And we are the poorer for it.

This piece was originally published on Pieria in May 2013 under the title "The Financialisation of Labour". We have not moved on signifcantly since. There is still a dearth of corporate investment in either robots or people. The unstable, short-term and poorly-paid service jobs created by the thousand after the financial crisis are now disappearing by the thousand as the pandemic destroys the "gig economy". But as unemployment heads for the moon, governments are reaching once again for the ideology of highly flexible labour markets. Secure, well-paid jobs are not what they want to create, and they don't seem too keen on investing in training and skills development, either. When will policymakers realise that tight labour markets drive corporate investment?

Image: Slave Labour Mural, Banksy

Related reading:

The Grapes of Wrath - Steinbeck

Risk pricing in labour markets - Coppola Comment

Bifurcation in the labour market - Coppola Comment

Perverse incentives and productivity - Coppola Comment

Trump’s Labor Secretary is Reaching Cartoonish Levels of Supervillainry

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/07/2020 - 4:01am in

Three recent moves by President Trump’s labor secretary Eugene Scalia make it seem as if the agency is intent on being a Legion of Doom that funnels workers’ retirement savings to Wall Street billionaires and fossil fuel conglomerates. Continue reading

The post Trump’s Labor Secretary is Reaching Cartoonish Levels of Supervillainry appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

No-Strings Cash Is Helping Black-Owned Businesses Survive

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 05/06/2020 - 10:49pm in

Business is picking up again for Piikup, the local delivery business April Fenall launched in 2018, based in Oakland, California.

“We’re getting new accounts up and old accounts are coming back but it’s going to be a challenge to service those because of new hard costs coming back online,” Fenall says.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, Fenall says Piikup was earning six figures in annual revenue for deliveries from mostly local food manufacturers to retail locations throughout the East Bay. The business employed four drivers and one administrative worker. Things had just gotten to the point where Fenall could start paying herself a salary instead of working two or three other jobs while building Piikup.

The pandemic saw Piikup’s main routes shut down as retailers closed up for social distancing purposes to stop the spread of coronavirus. The business was down to just one driver. Fenall says she applied for at least ten small business relief grants, unsuccessfully. She was able to obtain a Paycheck Protection Program loan, guaranteed by the Small Business Administration, through Self-Help Federal Credit Union. The loan is helping cover payroll as well as a portion of the rent she’s paying for some temporary warehouse space she’s been using as a staging area for deliveries as part of emergency response efforts.

But Fenall says she might have closed down the business if not for the Runway Project, a national initiative to address the “friends and family” funding gap for African-American entrepreneurs. Since 2018, through the Runway Project and its partner network, Fenall has received technical assistance and peer mentoring to model and launch her business, an early-stage loan from Self-Help Federal Credit Union, and, most recently and most urgently, $1,000 a month for at least six months in basic income with no strings attached, starting in May.

PiikupLocal delivery startup Piikup had a growing list of clients, including Mandela Foods Co-Op, but the pandemic threw Piikup’s business into chaos. Credit: Oscar Perry Abello

“It’s totally bringing us back to life,” says Fenall, who already has the $6,000 completely budgeted out. Some of it is going to pay her mortgage and buy her groceries, some of it is going to the business, extending the lease she has on the temporary warehouse staging area. “It’s also helping us maintain the vehicles, upgrading our equipment and safety procedures, PPE and cleaning, oil changes, tires. Gas for the vehicles,” Fenall says. “It’s helping us have money for all those things while we’re getting our clientele back up.”

For Runway Project founder Jessica Norwood, the basic income provided to the initiative’s 28 entrepreneurs carries a few different meanings, including truth in advertising when it comes to filling in the “friends and family” capital gap.

Friends and family invest more in startups per year than angel investors and traditional venture capital firms combined. But friends and family wealth can be more than just early-stage business investment — it can also be a safety net. In a true crisis, Norwood says, friends and family don’t question who needs help and how much, they give as much as they can to each other for as long as they can give it.

But generations of violent subjugation through slavery, Jim Crow and continued discrimination in the housing market, job market and capital markets have left black households in the U.S. with a median net worth just one tenth that of white households.

“We can’t have a brand promise saying we’re like friends and family and not show up,” Norwood says. “It’s not a nice to have, it’s a must have.”

Don’t Despair!

Solutions are everywhere.
Sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.

[contact-form-7]

It’s smart investment sense, too, as all 28 Runway Project entrepreneurs, 27 in the Bay Area and one in Boston so far, have taken out a loan through the initiative’s partners, Self-Help Federal Credit Union in the Bay and Berkshire Bank in Boston. Norwood says in mid-March her team started calling each entrepreneur to ask what would be needed to keep them from folding their businesses so those loans could eventually be repaid.

Deferments on existing Runway Project loans was basically a given. Some requested additional assistance from Runway Project’s technical assistance team, led by Uptima Business Bootcamp founder Rani Langer-Croager, to pivot into online sales. Simple cash assistance also emerged as a theme.

“This was not a time to sit back and fall back on, ‘We’re going to do a grant program where everybody has to sit back and apply.’ It’s even more trauma and stress to have to apply,” Norwood says. “It’s hard on staff to administer, too. It was just time for us to have a different sense of compassion and humanity than where society typically is when it comes to black communities and especially black entrepreneurs.”

But the Runway Project isn’t made of money. It couldn’t just start wiring cash to folks without fundraising first. Norwood also needed to fundraise to cover additional time for project staff and partners to provide the additional technical assistance requested, as well as the usual fundraising to cover staff salaries for the initiative.

Asking funders for cash to cover temporary basic income with no strings attached might have been a lost cause. But Norwood says her team had spent the past year and half reiterating with its funders, one-by-one, everything about the project down to its roots in economic justice for black communities and their businesses, and repairing the wounds left from generations of previous as well as ongoing systemic racial violence.

“There has to be a baseline where we’re going to have a conversation and you have to understand these racial inequities are real and you have to acknowledge that,” Norwood says. “I used to have to convince people of that, and it got to be very traumatic for me. Every time I bring it up, I’m thinking in my mind of all the terrible things that happened to black people. Every myriad of fuckery that happened.”

The Runway Project even created a funder manifesto it started using to put in the clearest possible terms and have funders sign onto that overall narrative of racial justice before committing any new or additional dollars to the initiative. When the pandemic hit, the moment came to test the new clarity of those relationships.

“I think all of us felt a sigh of relief because we were doing all of these things but you don’t know until the shit hits the fan did it matter that we talked to each other this way, did it matter that we said these things and had hour-long conversations and sat in these spaces, did that really matter?” Norwood says. “And it did matter, because everybody threw down.”

The call with Runway Project’s entrepreneurs in early May, to inform them that the temporary basic income payments were on the way, was a rare moment of joy for black entrepreneurs during a pandemic that has hit black communities hardest, next to native communities. One of the entrepreneurs told the group she was going to use the money to do some marketing and also stock up on additional inventory from her suppliers, who are also black-owned businesses.

“It was a really beautiful thing to witness,” Norwood says. “There’s multipliers for this money. It will go out to stabilize communities in ways that we don’t necessarily track.”

For Norwood, basic income payments are not a political experiment or an ideological vision. For her, it’s as personal as it gets. The Runway Project’s ultimate vision, basic income and all, is to model what it’s like for an economic system to love a segment of the population whom the economy has yet to really love. The kind of love that doesn’t evaporate when a disaster strikes, the kind of love that doubles down in a disaster.

“When we started Runway and my mother was dying from pancreatic cancer, I was terrified, I didn’t know she had gotten so frail,” Norwood says. “She looked at me and she said what’s wrong. I said I’m scared. She said I’m scared, too. My mother loved me like that, even while she was afraid, she was present with me, teaching me the strength. Even in her place of death she wasn’t going to abandon me. All of us deserve to feel that love.”

This article originally appeared in Next City.

The post No-Strings Cash Is Helping Black-Owned Businesses Survive appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.

Ten things to know about CMHC’s Insured Mortgage Purchase Program

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 07/04/2020 - 5:42am in

In March 2020, the Trudeau government launched a new version of the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP). According to CMHC’s website: “Under this program, the government will purchase up to $50 billion of insured mortgage pools through CMHC.”

Here are 10 things to know:

1. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is a federally-owned crown corporation. Many of us know CMHC as the federal agency that works with provincial and territorial governments to assist some low and moderate income households with rental housing. Likewise, some of us know CMHC as the lead federal agency on Canada’s National Housing Strategy (geared mostly to renters).

2. CMHC has been acting as a publicly-owned insurance company for residential mortgages since 1954. Indeed, in addition to assisting some renter households, CMHC also offers to insure mortgages with high loan-to-value ratios.[1] In other words, it tells the banks and other financial institutions: “If you are willing to provide a mortgage to this prospective homeowner, we’ll make sure you don’t incur any losses if they ever end up in default.”

3. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) regulates the banks to make sure they don’t engage in overly risky activity. Banks (and other financial institutions) sometimes like to get aggressive in their lending, so OSFI says they can’t make mortgage loans with less than a 20% down payment unless the mortgage is insured. CMHC provides such mortgage insurance, and premiums are paid by qualifying homeowners.

4. Most of Canada’s formal financial institutions are currently eligible to have their mortgages insured by CMHC.[2] Indeed, CMHC’s insurance program is not available to all lenders, but it does apply to all major mortgage issuers.[3] Mortgages that do not have CMHC insurance include mortgages with larger down payments and mortgages issued by some of Canada’s newer mortgage lenders.

5. Without CMHC’s insurance program (or equivalent) prospective homeowners would typically need at least a 20% down payment in order to purchase a home.[4] That would make it more challenging for many Canadians to buy a home for the first time. So without this insurance program in place, rental vacancy rates in Canada would likely be even lower than they are today (and this would be bad news for renters and prospective renters).

6. If an approved lender (namely, a bank, trust company, or credit union) makes a mortgage loan, CMHC will issue an insurance policy on that mortgage. The down payment can be anywhere from 5% to 20% of the value of the home. And if there’s a default, CMHC pays the bank. With this insurance program, a mortgage with a high loan-to-value ratio all of a sudden becomes a very good investment for the bank—that is, what once looked like a high-risk loan is now a low-risk loan. CMHC insurance therefore makes mortgage lending attractive for banks.

7. Homeowners then have to pay the premiums. For a loan-to-value ratio up to 80%, the premium is 2.4%. For a loan-to-value ratio between 80.1% and 90%, the premium is 3.1%. And for a loan-to-value ratio of between 90.1% and 95%, the premium is 4%. That’s the premium paid by qualifying homeowners, as a lump sum, when they take out the mortgage. Premiums go to CMHC’s publicly-owned insurance program. CMHC takes the premiums and invests them in stocks and bonds. When the time comes to cover claims on insurance, they can use the pool they built up to pay the claims.

8. With our looming recession, some homeowners will likely default on their mortgages. Knowing this, banks and other lenders have been looking at the state of all their loans (in fact, they must do so according to federal regulations).[5] And they need to be setting aside reserves against those possible defaults. Some banks are starting to think about calling in (i.e., cancelling) their loans and/or not issuing new loans. To avert such a crisis—known as a liquidity crisis—the Government of Canada is essentially injecting money into the financial system so that banks and other lenders don’t have to call in loans and stop issuing new loans (which would make matters worse for Canada’s economy). The Government of Canada is giving CMHC money to buy existing mortgages (all of which are insured by CMHC, and are therefore safe for the government to buy). When banks sell these mortgages to CMHC, banks get cash in return, which they can use to then make new loans (including new mortgage loans).

9. With the recently-announced IMPP, CMHC is offering to bulk purchase insured loans. CMHC effectively becomes a bulk purchaser of insured loans, bundled as mortgage-backed securities. CMHC has offered to buy back as many as financial institutions want to sell to them, up to the $50 billion threshold (an amount that has since been expanded to $150 billion). Homeowners will see no difference in the day-to-day. Once each mortgage term ends (they’re typically five-year term mortgages) homeowners will have to renew their mortgages with lenders.

10. A buy-back on this scale has only taken place once before. As is noted elsewhere: “Between fall 2008 and the end of 2010, CMHC purchased $69 billion of mortgages” via a previous iteration of this same program, in the immediate aftermath of the 2008-09 world financial crisis.

In sum. With the IMPP, the Government of Canada has likely helped prevent a financial crisis, which would have made our looming recession even worse. (For a concise overview of Canada’s housing finance system, see Chapter 4 of the Canadian Housing Observer 2014.)

I wish to thank the following individuals for assistance with this blog post: George Fallis, Susan Falvo, Marc Lee, David Macdonald, Marc-André Pigeon, David Pringle, Saul Schwartz, John Smithin, Tsur Somerville and two anonymous sources. Any errors are mine.

[1] A few caveats are in order here. First, CMHC also insures mortgages in rural areas that have low loan-to-value ratios (otherwise, the lender might refuse to issue a mortgage). Second, there are two other insurers of residential mortgages in Canada, in addition to CMHC. They are Genworth and AIG.

[2] And also by Genworth and AIG.

[3] Any lender or mortgage broker can apply to be an NHA-Approved Lender, and must then comply with CMHC underwriting standards—and if they don’t, they risk losing the approved lender status.

[4] Alternatively, they might provide another guarantee for the lender.

[5] OSFI sets requirements for reserves, based on risk-weighting criteria.

A tale of two halves

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 21/02/2020 - 10:22pm in

Tags 

investment, trade, UK

When the banks fell over, they knocked the stuffing out of the British economy. The UK’s productivity has been dismal ever since. Unemployment has fallen to historic lows and wages are rising, but productivity growth remains near zero. This “productivity puzzle,” as it is known, has had economists scratching their heads for best part of a decade.

But UK productivity is a tale of two halves. Experimental statistics recently released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reveal widely varying productivity levels across the UK. “Productivity grew in half of the 12 regions and countries of the UK in 2018,” says the ONS, “with output per hour increasing in both Scotland and the East Midlands by more than 2%; in contrast, output per hour fell in Yorkshire and The Humber and in Northern Ireland by at least 2%.”

 It would be easy to ascribe this stark divergence in productivity growth to the dominance of financial services and decline of manufacturing. Financial services are centred on London and to a lesser extent Edinburgh. The South East and the Midlands benefit from spillovers from London, and Scotland similarly benefits from spillovers from Edinburgh. The places losing out are traditional manufacturing and mining areas, which were gutted in the 1980s and have never recovered. It’s a neat explanation that fits well with the theory that the UK’s relative decline is due to the “finance curse,” a form of Dutch disease: an over-dominant financial services industry draining investment and talent from other industrial sectors and hampering exporters with an unnecessarily strong exchange rate. There is some support for this “finance curse” theory from IMF research showing that an over-large financial sector can be a drag on economic growth.

 Those who subscribe to the “finance curse” theory say that if the financial services industry is cut down to size, manufacturing industries will recover, productivity growth will be restored, and Britain will be Great again. Or perhaps German again. Some people, particularly on the Left, seem to want the UK to become an export-led heavy manufacturing powerhouse like Germany.

 At first sight, the ONS’s figures appear to support this theory. London and the South East are by far the most productive areas of the UK, exceeding average output per hour by (respectively) 36.1% and 9.1%. They are the only areas where output per hour exceeds the UK average. If this is entirely due to financial services, then cutting the financial services industry down to size would have a disastrous effect on UK productivity, at least in the short term. I suppose you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, but trashing the UK’s most productive industry doesn’t seem a great strategy for reversing the UK’s relative decline. Surely a better approach would be to find ways of raising investment, wages and productivity in other sectors?

Fortunately – or unfortunately, depending on your point of view – the “finance curse” theory doesn’t stand up to close analysis, at least in these statistics. The ONS analyses UK productivity growth by industrial sector in two example regions, one dominated by financial services and the other a traditional manufacturing and mining area. The map above shows that the South East (financial services) is storming ahead, while Yorkshire & the Humber (manufacturing & mining) is declining.

In both regions, financial services is the most productive industry, so the fact that the South East has a far larger financial services industry than Yorkshire & the Humber could explain the difference in output per hour. But between 2016 and 2018, output per hour in financial services fell by over 4% in the South East. There, the fastest productivity growth is in information & communication, and in arts, entertainment and recreation (which increasingly are technology led). The South East’s productivity growth seems to be led by technology, not financial services.


And Yorkshire & the Humber’s falling productivity isn’t primarily in manufacturing & mining, as might be expected. No, it seems to be technology. Information & communication output per hour dropped by over 6%.  However, “arts, recreation and entertainment” was a bright spot, so perhaps technology growth isn’t quite as dismal in this region as the collapse of the information sector suggests.


This chart shows that Yorkshire and the Humber is suffering from falling productivity across most industries, including sharp falls in transportation and storage and in non-manufacturing production and agriculture. Productivity has fallen in these industries in the South East, too, though not as much. This could speak of an aggregate demand shortage, not so much within the UK (since wholesale and retail trade seems to be holding up) but outside it. When the external sector struggles, so does the transportation industry. If so, then the UK's "productivity puzzle" might be partly due to the slowdown in global trade that has been evident since the financial crisis - and is now worsening because of trade frictions, rising protectionism and the strong US dollar. But this doesn't explain the divergence between the regions. Why would Yorkshire and the Humber be more affected by a global trade slowdown than London, one of the largest trading hubs in the world?

No, there is something else going on. And to understand it, we need to look more closely at these charts. The yellow dots indicate that in certain sectors productivity growth is much lower than was expected, and in others it is much higher than expected. And there is regional divergence in these figures. Productivity in financial services, for example, is far worse in the South East than was expected, but in Yorkshire and the Humber financial services are performing as poorly as expected. Productivity in transportation and storage is far worse in Yorkshire and Humber than was expected, but in the South East is better than expected. And the most stark divergence is in information, where the forecasters appear to have completely misread the direction of travel.

This speaks to me of a supply-side slowdown due to investment collapse, particularly since the UK voted to leave the EU (hence poor performance relative to the pre-2016 trend). The investment axe seems to have fallen particularly hard on those areas that voted for Brexit. Belligerence towards the EU in those areas hasn't gone unnoticed. Investors are unforgiving, and attitudes matter.

The UK’s “tale of two halves” may in the past have been about over-dominant financial services and declining manufacturing & mining. But now, it seems to be more about technology. Technology is important in all industries. When there is inadequate investment in technology – perhaps coupled with over-reliance on cheap labour - productivity falls. So the UK’s productivity puzzle won’t be solved by cutting financial services and resurrecting the heavy manufacturing industries of the past. Substantial investment in technology and associated skills will be needed, particularly in the regions where productivity is falling across the board.

But investment alone will not be enough. Equally important will be openness to trade and labour mobility. Sadly popular opinion not only in the UK, but around the world, seems to be pushing governments towards protectionism and closed borders. I fear that even with the investment that the Government is talking about pouring into the North, it will remain depressed relative to London, the South East and Scotland for the foreseeable future. Rejuvenation of the North may prove to be yet another beautiful but unfortunately evanescent dream.

Related reading:

Why "get on your bike" may be the right message for the Blue Wall - CapX
Memo to Boris: Buses will only get you so far - UnHerd

Trudeau’s proposed speculation tax

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 26/09/2019 - 11:45am in

I’ve written a blog post about the Trudeau Liberals’ recently-proposed speculation tax on residential real estate owned by non-resident, non-Canadians.

The full blog post can be accessed here.

Impact Investment Data ‘Woeful’

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 21/10/2015 - 10:04am in

Global Boom In Responsible Investment

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 25/02/2015 - 10:11am in

NFP Benchmarking Project Revealed

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/01/2015 - 10:24am in

$1.5 Million to Develop Early Stage Social Enterprises

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 17/12/2014 - 11:33am in

Pages