How pretty is the UK without the "bad bits"?

 
City skyline The City of London: One of the "bad bits"?

One of the things that companies routinely do is state their financial results without the bad bits.

They typically call this presentation "underlying" profit or the profit of "continuing activities".

The respectable reason for showing these figures is that they give shareholders and the world some idea of what the relevant company would look like, once it has chopped out all the rotten bits.

The disreputable reason is that some boards hope that investors will forget that the bad stuff is real, still inside the company, and shrinking the owners' wealth.

You may have noticed, for example, that on the basis of the activities RBS wants to keep, it has been looking in rude health for some years (well almost).

But once the losses on rotten assets are included, bargepoles spring to mind - and for the avoidance of doubt, I am only citing RBS because the scale of the rot it needs to cut out is so great. I am not suggesting it is trying to cynically manipulate perceptions (in fact occasionally I've wondered whether some of its top people actually enjoy wallowing in the red ink they've spilled).

All of which has made me wonder what UK PLC would look like on a "continuing" or "underlying" basis, without the bad stuff?

I am not talking about wishing away the household, business, financial and public sector debt that has been bearing down on economic activity since 2007.

What interests me is what UK output would look like if big sectors in long term decline were excluded.

Here is the thing. For some decades, the British economy has been disproportionately dependent on financial services and North Sea oil and gas extraction - both of which are in serious decline.

Of course not all of the City and finance is shrinking. What has been disappearing is an industry in which we were a world leader - the manufacture of what the FSA chairman, Lord Turner, called socially useless financial products, or the sort of complex derivatives that did the opposite of what they said on the tin (they were supposed to augment investors' wealth, but were a fast route to ruin).

Start Quote

Britain without the bad bits looks prettier than the eurozone, but uglier than the US”

End Quote

Meanwhile, as banking around the world has reverted to becoming more national and less international again, the City - as the world's most open and global financial centre - has suffered.

Also there are pockets of the North Sea still gushing. And who knows whether, in time, we will become big frackers?

But if we assume that we had too many eggs in the energy and finance baskets, and these sectors will continue to shrink for years as a proportion of the economy, what does the UK look like without them?

Now as it happens, the Treasury has sent me the work it has done on this.

It has adjusted UK gross value added, a measure of economic output, to exclude energy extraction and use, and also financial and insurance activities.

What this shows is that the rest of the economy is in better shape than many might believe, if not in the rudest of health.

So, for example, on the basis of conventional GDP, UK output is still 3% below the peak it hit at the beginning of 2008 (making this, as Stephanie and I have said many times, the longest depression in a technical sense for at least 100 years).

By contrast UK GVA or output without the bad bits, without finance and energy, is almost back to peak output. At the end of 2012, it was 0.7 of a percentage point below its peak in the first quarter of 2008.

That compares well with the euro area as a whole, whose GVA on the same basis is down 2.9 percentage points over the same period.

It is a better performance than the Netherlands and a similar performance to France's. It is miles better than what has happened in the eurozone crisis nations, Italy, Portugal and Spain. And only Germany does a bit better (in its case, output is up by 0.9 of a percentage point).

So on this analysis, UK manufacturing and non-financial services are not doing too badly.

That said, this is not the moment to crack open the champagne.

It is important to remember that the UK has had significant monetary advantages, compared with the more rigid inflexible eurozone, in the post-crash years - a currency, sterling, that could and has fallen to reflect weak conditions here, and a central bank able to price money and create money to meet the UK's challenges.

So British businesses should - and do - perform a good deal better than competitors in countries like Italy and Spain, where the exchange rate and monetary conditions are less accommodating.

Which means there are probably two important points to make. First Britain without the bad bits looks prettier than the eurozone, but uglier than the US.

And unfortunately we can't magic away the bad bits, finance and energy.

They will be with us for years to come, powerful headwinds acting as a brake on recovery.

 
Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Where will the oil price settle?

The oil price may have hit bottom. But oil will continue for some months yet to be the big influence on prosperity and power.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 543.

    542. All for All
    Please note, that AllforAll does not explicitly say that democracy is bad if it permits slavery if the majority approves it. He has never said he is against slavery, and has not said if a majority in any form of democracy approve it, would that slavery be immoral.

    AllforAll seeks tyranny of the majority, at the expense of the minority. All equal indeed, unless your a minority.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 542.

    Bastiat @540

    Only for I think the second time in more than two years of posting here, I have had cause to refer a post, for gross misrepresentation

    Bastiat @540 asserted as my belief, the idea that "democracy" - by himself disavowed, and by myself defined explicitly as EQUAL FREEDOM - "permits slavery if the majority approve it"

    Such conduct 'deserves' remark

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 541.

    Robert,

    Eventually, you and Steph are getting the message. The UK is doing well. I could reel off lots of stats if you gave me a page.

    Here are a few; new car sales up 8% cf. down 8% in theEZ, highest employment ever, GDP up 0.3% last year despite massive deleveraging, offshore investment at a thirty year high.

    We must measure our success in terms of fixing problems.

  • Comment number 540.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 539.

    538 Faux Geordie

    Yes I remember listening to the senate banking committee headed by Levin, I think, hammering Blankfein over it. I think it was called "one ...... product" You have subsituted the swear word with the word duff.
    It revolved around their big short position. They were shorting the very product they were punting and not disclosing the position either - even denying it's existence.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 538.

    "Who makes money selling a duff product?"

    My other post was pulled for swearyness.OK. GS got fined $550 million in 2011 for setting up a derivative DOOMED to fail then betting against it. For once they got caught

    Easily checkable. Since people refuse to believe simple truths- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10656699

    One more thing - YOU are the sucker. They rely on you being so trusting...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 537.

    sw @535
    "competing interests"
    Ultimate 'Share-Holding Democracy'
    Equal Partnership
    Equal Income-Shares
    Of whatever we make
    Together

    Fully real', not just votes, 'democracy' the context of life in conscience, everyone free to act 'for all'

    Being 'only human', all else a matter of growing-up, Life's adventure!

    No conflict of 'material interest'. But for love & fun & place, 'competition'

    Cheered?

  • Comment number 536.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 535.

    534 ALLINALL

    How do you reconcile competing interests in the setting up of the equal partnership?
    Has that Heraclitan chaos of which you earlier hinted, by way of dialectical parenthesis, a role to play?
    Were you trying to equate equal partnership with peoples democracy?

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 534.

    CoEdmu @532
    Aaagh!
    Democracy
    "Dictatorship of the Majority?"

    A young visitor, or one of Bastiat's perspicacity, or have I truly commented all day in vain?

    For democracy beyond reproach, we need most (amongst capable adults at least), to understand and agree Equal Partnership (enduring income-share equality) as the best expression of our goodwill, for ourselves & each other & The Future

    Try @514

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 533.

    Robert.
    Venture to suggest.that we all to blame.The people buying the adverts are innocent.The people selling the adverts are innocent.
    All of our Politicians are innocent.
    How can anyone blame a company for provided a duff product.They thought the product was good.
    But..the product is still advertsed,Still available.
    Why?
    Who makes money selling a duff product?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 532.

    Ah, Democracy ... is that the Dictatorship of the Majority?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 531.

    530 Allinall

    Yes your correct of course about Aristotle. Equality wasn't his strongpoint. Or perhaps it was his blindspot.
    His definition of democracy was quite good though if only viewed in isolation.
    I guess that was why you were both discussing slavery.
    I didn't know about the 519 comment. I see it is no longer there.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 530.

    sw@529
    Bastiat "I'm off" @519
    Already missed, wisdom of 13 writers "et al"
    How POSSIBLE, to read so much, and find no fault?

    We'll have to wait for that definition of "a people's democracy": I fear the worst!

    By the way, did Aristotle directly encompass enduring equality, or only by implication, in such as "Of, For, By The People": a most tragic lapse in clarity

    Good to have RP's beacon blogs!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 529.

    Bastiat
    You seem to be arguing about what is democracy.
    AllforAll seems to be using the Aristotelian definition.
    I don't see whats wrong with that.
    Say you agree on it - democracy = govt for the people by the people.
    I still think you haven't explained how the laws in your state will be made.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 528.

    Bastiat @526
    "people's democracy"
    Beyond definition?
    Or even 'source' quotation?

    You put argument and help beyond reach

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 527.

    @20.FrankieBoy

    'we have benefited from the lowest interest rates in history! '

    No we haven't, only the banks have benefited from the Bank of Englands low interest rate. We all pay over the odds still, unless of course you are a saver!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 526.

    525. All for All
    Gutless.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 525.

    Bastiat @524
    "running & twisting"
    You said it…
    I wonder why?

    You have a trick meaning for your "people's democracy"?

    Perhaps you will need to supply 13 references, from Hobbes to Schiff, or more?

    You would like a Yes or No to a blank cheque? Then to accuse of 'ideological refusal' to buy a friend out of slavery, not to become a registered owner???

    Have a better weekend!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 524.

    523. All for All

    I did not ask WHAT a "genuine" democracy would do.
    I asked you, the questions you STILL avoid:

    *IF the "people's democracy" passes a law permitting slavery, IS THIS RIGHT?

    *IF the "people's democracy" passes a law taking away people's homes to give to other people, IS THIS RIGHT?

    Keep running and twisting. I know you cannot answer this :D

 

Page 1 of 28

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.