World's biggest bank JP Morgan turns bullish on British bonds

The world's biggest bank has turned positive on Britain's creditworthiness as Rachel Reeves lines up more tax rises to balance the Government's books.
In a rare boost for the Chancellor, JP Morgan Asset Management said the cost of servicing UK debt – known as gilts – should fall but only because the Government is 'much more constrained by its own fiscal rules' than other countries.
The US bank, whose £2.7trillion of assets managed are almost as big as the British economy itself, reckons Reeves' rules are 'untouchable' and will limit the amount she can borrow, making gilts more attractive to lenders because fewer of them will need to be sold.
But JP Morgan said the Chancellor will still face 'difficult decisions' filling a hole of up to £15billion in the public finances after she outlined big increases in health and defence expenditure in her recent spending review – despite the economy continuing to flatline.
Reeves has ruled out raising the headline rates of income tax, VAT and employees' National Insurance in her upcoming Autumn Budget, but has left the door open for raiding pension pots and extending a freeze on how much can be earned before taxes are paid.
It comes as growing concerns about the state of the public finances have pushed the cost of government borrowing above levels seen under Liz Truss when investors who lend money to the Government were spooked by the former Prime Minister's package of unfunded tax cuts in the now infamous 'mini-Budget'.
But JP Morgan, run by veteran banker Jamie Dimon, has turned into a buyer of British bonds, in part because Donald Trump's tariffs and tax policies make assets such as the dollar and US debt a less appealing bet.
'The risk/reward trade-off for UK Government debt appears more attractive relative to many of our counterparts around the world,' said the bank's Hugh Gimber.
'Gilts are arguably best positioned, given a relatively weak growth backdrop and a government that is more constrained by its own fiscal rules,' he added.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

19 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Wes Streeting: NHS cannot afford assisted dying

Wes Streeting has warned that the NHS cannot afford legalising assisted dying. The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, warned that assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service. He said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Writing on his Facebook page, Mr Streeting said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Mr Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. 'Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Mr Streeting said the Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Dame Esther Rantzen, an assisted dying campaigner, urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, a Paralympian and crossbench peer, told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner, Lord Shinkwin, said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today: 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. Lord Shinkwin added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'

The Independent

28 minutes ago

• The Independent

I'm a business journalist – here's why I'll never activate my debit card

I have a confession. This is something that, for many years, only my wife has known: I am a lifelong bank-phobe. At this point, anyone who has read my work might very well ask, what the hell? I am, after all, a former banking correspondent. A former financial correspondent. At one point, I had the grandiose title of financial services editor. This means that I've spent a good chunk of my career in and around banks, speaking to bankers and bank CEOs, spending time in their august company, breaking bread and sharing drinks with them. I've also taken them on and criticised them in print, harshly, without fear or favour. I've had rows with their PR people who don't like this. Water off a duck's back. But we separate the professional from the personal, don't we? Well, most of us do. Crime correspondents don't tend to participate in armed robbery. Political writers don't become MPs, with one or two notable exceptions which, let's be honest, haven't worked out too well. In my case, this means I should always deal with my financial admin. Instead, bank statements always, but always, got put on the mail pile until my long-suffering wife would roll her eyes and do the necessary. Over the years, this avoidance has reached quite ridiculous levels, but whoever said phobias make sense? Irrational is part of the definition. An example: we switched banks a while back, and I still haven't activated my debit card. How do I pay for stuff? I have a credit card that I've used for so long that I'm almost comfortable with it. Almost. Paying the bill still requires me to psych myself up first. That's not because I'm a profligate spender – beyond an addiction to vinyl records, which I'm starting to have doubts about, given the way prices have been going. It is the process of paying the bill that causes me the problem, not the bill itself. I know, I know. I've written columns urging people who do get into trouble with their cards – and this is very easy if your provider keeps increasing your limit without being asked, as mine does – or other borrowings to contact their bank. It is the smart move, and they have got a lot better at helping distressed borrowers, largely as a result of pressure from politicians and regulators. You can always call Citizens Advice first. However, I also understand and empathise with people who resist. It's the fear. The sheer abject terror these institutions instil. In my case, this partly stems from the periods of relative poverty I endured while growing up in a single-parent household; living in social housing, qualifying for free school meals, wearing hand-me-downs and suchlike. The school meals were particularly nasty because we were quite literally singled out, so everyone knew exactly who the poor kids were. A lack of money leaves a mark. The second reason is running out of money while studying. This wasn't uncommon. I had friends in the same boat, but they had more sympathetic banks. My branch had Ms Nice and Ms Not-so-nice. I happened upon Ms Not-so-nice on the day of my appointment. She said 'No' to giving me an overdraft. On balance, this was probably a good thing, and I ultimately found a way through because necessity is the mother of invention. I didn't commit crime, but I did get a part-time job. However, the stress of those days spent working out how I was going to eat has stayed with me. The final problem is that most banks are huge bureaucracies that can be horribly difficult to deal with, especially if you catch someone like my 'computer says no' person at university. My family has been dealing with state bureaucracies of one kind or another for many years because of the disabilities my son and I deal with. Needless to say, this is like pulling out your teeth with a pair of rusty pliers. It is a Sisyphean exercise to get them to so much as lift a finger. Local councils, the various branches of the NHS, you name it. The same rot afflicts them all. Note to politicians: if you want to rescue your miserable reputation, do something about the fact that the word 'service' has all but vanished from public services. They spend more time, energy, and even money on saying 'no' than they do on doing their jobs. I once damaged my wrist punching a wall because I'd got so wired while interacting with a hospital, one boasting of its inclusive patient-centred approach, whose procedures seemed designed to prevent anyone with disabilities from accessing care. Then you have the banks with all those frustrating security hoops, phone menus and hours wasted hanging on the telephone before you speak to someone. And when you do get through, banks often aren't any more helpful than the NHS at its worst. The prospect of speaking to mine makes my brain shut down. No, no. It melts down. It feels like trying to climb the Matterhorn in shorts, a Metallica T-shirt and a pair of Crocs. My wife tells me that our new bank is quite good – I did my homework when choosing it – and writing this has me thinking: perhaps it's time to scale that mountain and to apply some of the techniques taught to me by my therapist for dealing with my post-road-accident episodes of PTSD to finances. But I confess, I'll probably put it off until tomorrow. If you do that too - and I get the impression that I'm far from alone - I'm not going to judge. I know where you're coming from.

Daily Mail​

36 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Absolutely dotty! Government blows over half a million on 'vanity' makeover for website which involved moving a full stop

Ministers spent more than £500,000 of taxpayers' money on a 'vanity' makeover for the government website which critics say is little more than changing a colour and moving a dot. The site, used by millions for essential services such as tax returns and passport renewals, will see its traditional black masthead turned blue and its 'dot' coloured turquoise. The tweaks were commissioned as part of 'brand refresh' with contracts totalling £532,000 handed to global ad agency M&C Saatchi. The costly new logo, set to go live this month, has already met with ridicule from civil servants, with one mocking online: 'Did someone really get paid to move a dot?'. Others labelled it 'cheap', 'tacky' and 'absolutely diabolical'. Zia Yusuf, head of Reform UK's efficiency drive, last night branded the revamp a waste of public money. He said: 'The disrespect for taxpayers' money continues to be astounding. 'Spending more than £500,000 on changing a logo on a government website is a joke at the taxpayer's expense, quite literally. 'This is just the kind of thing we have been uncovering in county halls on a daily basis. It's abundantly clear that Whitehall also needs a visit from Reform's DOGE team.' Two contracts for the brand refresh were tendered by the previous Conservative government and carried on under Labour, according to publicly available papers. Communications giant M&C Saatchi secured deals potentially worth up to £750,000. A government source said the final bill came to £532,000, which the cost drawn from existing department budgets. The new logo was criticised on web forums used by civil servants. One said: 'As a government we are trying to maximise efficiency and save money. 'Why was this what we chose to spend time and resources on?' Another joked: 'Reform blue for the dot. Conservative blue for the background. Are they preparing us for 2029?' Elliot Keck, campaigns chief at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers will be baffled that hundreds of thousands have been blown on minor graphic design changes. 'At a time when public services are stretched and families are feeling the pinch, shelling out for a vanity rebrand is an insult to hardworking Brits. 'Ministers should be focusing on delivering frontline services, not petty optics.' Officials defended the cost, stressing the six-figure bill included 'refreshing and extending' the brand across web, mobile and app platforms. A government spokesman said: 'This was committed to by the previous government, with two of the three contracts signed and delivered by July 2024. 'The new government then chose to turn the rebranding and research work into consumer-friendly digital products, including our upcoming App, Chat and more.' MailOnline has contacted the government for further comment. The website was last overhauled in 2012.