Small Cap Value Report (9 Jul 2015) - Budget, PLUS, GOAL
Good morning!
There's been a big rebound (about 10%) in the Chinese stock market overnight, although whether it can be considered a fair market is open to question, since the Govt has banned major shareholders from selling their shares for the next 6 months. As with everything in China, it's best to assume that it's not capitalism as we understand it in the West.
I get the feeling that the market crash in China was beginning to affect confidence in Western stock markets, but who knows? Sometimes people look for any excuse to sell positions after a long bull run.
Yesterday's Budget from Mr Osborne was radical, and contained some big changes. There are plenty of Budget reviews online, so I won't replicate that, but my initial thoughts for how it might affect shares/investors are:
Housebuilders & estate agents shares took a knock of about 5% last night - perhaps the future reduction in BTL interest relief, and tightening of Non-Dom status might reduce demand for property?
A big rise in Minimum Wage to £9/hr by 2020 is surely to be welcomed, in terms of making society a little fairer, I think so anyway. Yes, smaller businesses will perhaps struggle, but the £9 rate only applies to over 25s. They will still be able to pay lower wages to younger people. I think the macro effects will be very positive, as the low paid tend to spend all their income, and very fast, so it will boost overall demand in the economy well I think - so the gainers will generally be retailers, in terms of increased sales.
The losers will also include sectors where a lot of staff are paid Minimum Wage - so retailers, hospitality, and the care sector, spring to mind. So it will be interesting to see how the gains and losses will compare for retailers - will they be net losers or gainers? I think they will gain from lower staff turnover, from paying staff a decent wage, and staff feeling more motivated to give decent customer service too, so overall it gets a big thumbs up from me.
What else? The phasing out of the bank levy, and introduction of an 8% Corp Tax surcharge seems a good idea to me, as banks should pay more for the State guarantee which props them up when needed. I see that shares in challenger bank Aldermore (LON:ALD) were hit hard, but the major banks don't seem to have been affected much. (disclosure: I bought a few Aldermore shares on the sharp drop).
The self-employed who operate through a personal service limited company seem likely to be hit hard by increased taxation, due to the changes in how dividends will be treated. Even though it will affect me adversely, I think it's a move which is fair - the self-employed generally pay a lot less tax than people on PAYE, which is wrong.
I see that shares in Drax (LON:DRX) were hit very hard yesterday, down about 25%, due to changes in taxation relating to renewable energy I think, not sure as I glaze over at any mention of renewables.
Generally I feel that the big shift in emphasis from low to higher wages, beginning to slay the monster of Tax Credits (as described by Labour's own Welfare supremo, Frank Field) which Gordon Brown created, and further increases in the tax-free personal allowance, is definitely the right direction of travel, to create an economy with less extreme/unfair income inequality. Also it is surely only logical to let people keep more of their own money, instead of the status quo where people are taxed to oblivion, and then too poor to stand on their own feet, so have to apply back to the Govt for an income top-up! How ridiculous, only Socialists could dream up such a warped system, as of course they want everyone to feel dependent on the State, so that we vote for them!
A lot of the other moves, such as removing financial incentives for people to breed like rabbits, also gets a big thumbs up from me.
READER SURVEY - I've set up a quick reader survey, with only 3 questions on what you think about China, Greece, and the Budget - should only take a few seconds to complete. So let me know your responses - click here.
(Drat, sorry only just realised that SurveyMonkey only allows 100 responses, I have to pay £299 to upgrade for 1,000 responses, what a nuisance. So apologies if you're not able to log a response. Does anyone else know a better survey solution, as I like the idea of doing more reader polls, but don't want a limit on no. of responses in future? If so, pls let me know in the comments below).
EDIT: trying out Google Forms - please see if this new survey works:
<iframe src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1qAgIWh0OfNa0xXG3gnQfMip44YdZgGLPzwyneMBJCq0/viewform?embedded=true" width="760" height="500" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe>
Plus500 (LON:PLUS)
Trading update - my general impression from reading this update is that this controversial CFD provider seems to be getting back on track, after the serious regulatory problems which it ran into earlier this year.
Although risks persist, as the company today says, "The Plus500 Group continues to be the subject of a high level of regulatory scrutiny".
On outlook the company says;
My opinion - it seems to me that the disaster scenario predicted by bears is now receding, so the 400p agreed takeover bid (which the company describes as a merger today!) seems likely to go through now. There's also the possibility that the bid might be improved, with a higher price.
For these reasons, I thought it best to close my short position on this share this morning, as risk:reward seems to be moving in favour of the bulls. Of course, there is still a risk that the 400p takeover bid might fall through, so it's not a share I would want to be long of either.
Goals Soccer Centres (LON:GOAL)
Trading update - for H1 of 2015. The shares are down 5% to 205p, so this has clearly not impressed.
UK LFL sales from 46 sites are not great, down 2%. However, the one US site has delivered a barn-storming 20% LFL sales growth, "reinforcing confidence" for their planned US roll-out.
Valuation - EPS is forecast at 16.1p for this year, and 18.1p for next year. It sounds as if they are trading slightly below forecast, and of course you have to factor in a significant level of debt. So the PER of 12.7 times this year isn't as cheap as it looks, once you adjust for debt.
My opinion - it's a very slow roll-out here, which I suppose is only to be expected from large sites which need planning permission, etc. So I've never been comfortable with the previously quite toppy rating here. Also, the new player App doesn't seem to have made much difference, with LFL sales in the main UK market slightly negative.
However, below 200p per share, I think it might start to look interesting, so it's a stock I will put back on my watch list.
Sorry, run out of time this morning, as I have to drive up to Reading for an investor lunch now. If anything interesting happens during the day, I'll update this article this evening.
Have a good day!
Regards, Paul.
Disclaimer
This is not financial advice. Our content is intended to be used and must be used for information and education purposes only. Please read our disclaimer and terms and conditions to understand our obligations.
45 comments
I'm not against immigration either, I just think we need to have some control over who comes to our country and I'm not in favour of just picking the most qualified (points based system) either. What happens if 30m people turn up?
MESSAGE FOR CLEVE (the reply button will not work, apologies).
I am in the same business as you, but as an employee. I could not agree more with the last comments. As a tip, do as our boss did: drop the sarnies and bring in a 'lite bites' such as soup and bread and fish strips. Raise the price, improve the margin, get rid of the whining trip advisor numpties.
The so-called living wage, which is just another level on the national minimum wage, will cripple the business where I work. Margins have become very slim. The likely outcome is that no-one over 24 will be employed in the industry!!! I have good bosses who look after us all, but this is simply unfair. Nobody here is on the minimum wage, but nine quid iscrazy unless we have massive inflation. Anybody who thinks this is a good idea is unconnected to the realitiesof low-skilled working life.
Good luck,my friend.
It is an interesting point about immigration, will this not just encourage more people to come to live in the UK?
There's an interesting discussion about minimum wages with billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer on the Masters in Business podcast:
http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/
He's talking from a US perspective but the principles apply to the UK as well.
Essentially his view is that low minimum wages are government subsidies for business since they have to be made up with food stamps (US) and tax credits (UK) to allow the employee to live. Why should the tax-payer be expected to fund business profit margins. This is a subsidy particularly for places like McDonalds and is bad for the economy because the employees of higher end business get a slightly cheaper hamburger but the employees at McDonalds can't afford to buy the products of the higher end businesses. In a consumer led economy this leads to sub-optimal economic activity and job creation.
The low wage employers have big employee turn-over so their recruitment costs are too high and it may actually make more business sense to increase pay to retain workers.
In terms of motivation the research (e.g. Maslow) shows that increasing pay is not an additional motivator for anything but the most basic of tasks however too low pay is an active de-motivator. My feeling is that this is probably the case with the current minimum wage in the UK vs housing costs etc.but I don't have any studies to back this up explicitly.
Like Nick Hanauer, I don't see minimum wage increases or restraint on inequality as 'left-wing' but rather an important part of capitalism in a modern information and consumer led economy.
I agree with the principle but its cheaper to live in the country than it is in London so this should be taken into account with different wage bands. You could argue of course that the economy sets the wages for example chefs are very very tough to get in Norfolk so they command big money and hence should governments be meddling in any of it as in a free market which should sort itself out. I hate the idea of any child living in poverty but at the same time we must not incentivise people to have lots of children knowing that the state would pay, I had a bar maid who had 7 kids and her state support is something like 40k a year, I could not afford 7 kids (nor do I want I hasten to add) but why should she be able to have so many knowing that the state will pick up the tab. It's a debate that could be had for years with no real winner but in essence I hate all government meddling in business as they normally have no idea what they are doing and it has limited advantages so I much prefer a free market. Surely it should be up to the employers what they pay their staff not George Osbourne and of course its up to the staff to want to work at the rates being offered! I would not feel right taking advantage of someone and I am sure most business owners (of small companies) would feel the same way.
Hi dangersimpson,
Excellent points made on the reality of tax credits being subsidies for companies paying low wages rather than welfare receipients. A billionaire from an earlier generation showed the economic sense of increasing pay to retain trained and motivated workers.Henry Ford's $5 A Day
I am not in favour of a minimum wage or a living wage. The minimum wage has in far too many sectors become the maximum wage, or as close to it as to make no discernable difference. All these different attempts to "fix" the market for labour shows how broken it is. Pity the unskilled 25 year old competing with younger competion!
Osborne is just tinkering at the edges - creating as many problems as he purports to fix - the whole system has become obese and corrupted.
Employer National Insurance is a tax on employment. He should have looked at divesting some of this, rather than cutting corporation tax, as a means of reducing (he's too timid to eliminate) the "need" for tax credits.
Bonitabeach
Employer National Insurance is a tax on employment.
Although I understand where you are coming from I think some kind of Employer National Insurance makes sense. The Employer does get a benefit from this becasue they can claim some money back for employees on sick leave, maternity leave etc. Most choose to enhance above the statutory but it means that SME are not unduly penalised since they don't have the number of staff to mitigate a sick employee. So to keep effective equal opportunities etc. and let SME's compete we need a system of Employers NI.
Also in the global world where the likes of starbucks reduce their corporationtax by buying the branded beans from a luxembourg subsiduary so making minimal profit in the UK to pay corporation tax there needs to be some kind of tax on companies that is based on economic activity not profit. This could be VAT or Employers NI or Business Rates. But given that business have differnt characteristics of their need for employees, land and sales then a mix of the three makes sense. I think this is probably the real reason that they have changes corporation tax not NI even though the latter feels like a 'tax on jobs'.
Where I think we could simplify things is Employees NI. Apart form a few benfits most don't use/get anyway like contribution based jobseekers this is really just an income tax. Given that the thresholds go from 12% to 2% around the 40% income tax threshold the true tax rate goes from 32% to 42%. However most people don't realise this so simplifying things but making it obvious that the lower rate tax is actually 32% not 20% would be politically tricky imo. Therefore we are stuck with the system we have.
Paul. We need something on the budget re buy-to-lets etc. is it worth looking at Aldermore etc
david
I think Paragon of Companies (LON:PAG) will be affected.
The Living wage is simply not fair. Let me explain why. Lets look at benefits firstly there is now a maximum benefit paid per household which seems fair but there is one level set for london and a lower one for outside London so why does the Govt think that a hotel cleaner should be paid the same who lives in Bury as they are in central London. In my view if someone is very long term unemployed in London then they should have the same benefits as someone who lives in Bury that may mean that they have to move out of London but if they are not working there and need to be supported then why should the state pay. If I was a shop assistant at Harrods then I would love to live in Knightsbridge but as most people who are shop assistants will not be able to afford to they have to commute in from cheaper areas.
I run a restaurant and hotel in the country, all my staff earn more than £ 7.50 so thats not an issue but £ 9 is a joke and every member of staff who works for me has already said that its not right and its unaffordable they know that but clearly Osbourne does not. In the winter its a struggle to keep going, and if it rains in August then you have an awful year and it will simply mean that village pubs etc will just close down at an even more rapid pace. Add to this the VAT treatment which compounds the unfairness (buy a take away sandwich in Pret there is no vat buy one from me there is) then how on earth can you survive. Good Chefs are over 25 etc, I motivate my staff put them on bonuses if I make money so do they and I understand totally the argument as to why should the state support my employees but at around £ 8 an hour they are more than happy and none claim from the state as life is cheaper in the country but at £ 9 someone will lose their job, or else the hotel gets converted into a house which will make me a ton of money but will mean that the staff all lose their jobs.
The living wage should be at a different rate in London to outside of London, it needs to be fair.
Steve
I agree with what you say. However the £9 will not come in for another 5 years by which time it may seem fair? If you pay £8 now, 5 years inflation would increase that to £9?
It is possible Herbie, inflation is a strange thing anyway as they seem to change this magic basket of goods to suit. in France they treat hospitality with different vat amounts and I think they should do the same over here. The £9 maybe about right in 5 years who knows, we pay our cleaner in the country £ 10 now but what will happen is that everyone will go onto a basic salary and be taken out the working week directive so in essence they will work what hours are need each week, more in summer less in winter thats my guess. They should certainly differentiate the pay rates in and out of London but it seems with this Northern powerhouse idea they are trying to do it a different way, try telling your average oligarch to go and live in Manchester!
Yes I agree about London but to do it fairly you would have to do on a regional basis even then housing costs vary so much, if you go 1 mile up the road houses can be x2 the price. But I agree London should be higher than say Lincolnshire or Middlesborough.
Couldn't you simply pass through wage increases into your prices? All your competitors will have the same problem so your competitive position is unchanged. People who use hotels and restaurants are unlikely to all switch to take-away sandwiches and camping just because of a say 10% price increase. Being able to afford that kind of thing is a key part of maintaining a middle or upper class status. Also if this industry's employees have more money, they might come more often as guests...
Yes but we did that this year, adding a service charge (discretionary) and giving staff decent contracts with no zero hours employees. We have had lots of complaints on trip advisor, 99% of people are happy and indeed if we have something expensive on the menu like local lobster it sells out but the sandwich buyers are the ones that complain and that in turn puts others off. Sadly trip advisor gives too many people who should not have a voice a large shout at how your business performs although you do get the odd useful comment. We are almost at the stage of dropping sandwiches we make nothing on them and those that eat them take up valuable space. I personally don't care if I pay £ 6 or £ 12 for a sandwich as long as its local fresh and good but there are many who think that £ 6 should be a maximum and when they don't get it they shout from the rooftops which damages the reputation of the place!
As always the devil is in the detail, this is not a 'living wage' it is merely an extra band that has been inserted into the minimum wage to soften the blow of tax credits being drastically cut. While we would all like more money in our pockets ( I am a gainer by all accounts) I would rather the money be kept by the govt and invested in infrastructure projects/house building and the multiplier effects kick on into the economy longer term.
But if wages are increased and tax credits decreased, are the Govt. not keeping more of the money?
I think one point that has been missed by many is tax revenue is down because the last Givt. increased tax thresholds well above inflation, I'm surprised the Tories did not mention that when they were attacked by Labour. I think its going the right way, we need incitives for people to work, I don't agree with this culture where you are better off not working, unemployment benefits should only be for a short term not for life.
Firstly please readers please please please give these brilliant articles a thumbs up. Over 1000 reads and only 11 thumbs.
Secondly Paul thank you for a great view on the budget I could not have put better myself. Mr Wolf over at the FT today says of the new living wage that "This is probably going to prove to be a big mistake" so I suspect that this will mean it will be a rip roaring success!
Certainly after this budget I feel more positive about the direction of uk shares over the medium to long term as I think it (and labour's reaction to it) has pushed the possibility of another labour administration further in to the future - another two terms at least I suspect.
Hi rmillaree,
Good point, well made.
Steve
Surprised no one has commented on the change of tax on dividends.
Paul,
As you already use Google Docs you can setup your own surveys using that; using Google Forms. (New | More |Google Forms)
Cheers
Carcosa
A second recommendation for Google Forms to run surveys.
We use them at work and they are very easy to set up and use.
Paul - you know I respect you so much, but if we were talking about nearly any other industry, it would be acknowledged by every intelligent person that prices floors tend to create an oversupply and should not be enforced. But if we are talking about something like human labour, then emotions tend to rule.
Hi Graham N
I don't understand your comment. Can you expand? Thanks.
If the market price of a widget is X and an authority introduces a floor price at say 1.5*X, while the cost of making the widget is unchanged (somewhere below X), you may get a rush of people coming to the widget market trying to get a share of the now larger than life profit margin. This may lead to increased inventory, until the cost of storage equals the extra profit.
In the labour market it may induce people who were not part of the workforce to (try to) enter it. Absent other effects (assuming constant demand for work, for a moment), this increases recorded unemployment. It's just a change of status though, from not-working-not-seeking to not-working-but-seeking, not as such a bad thing.
That said there are other effects to a minimum wage, e.g. it's redistributive towards poorer people with high propensity to spend, as Paul noted, so some increased demand for work may sponge up the supply.
There are negative effects for exports on products where the country is a price taker and the product is low skill intensive, but then in a developed economy this is is tiny, as nearly all such manufacturing is long gone.
Hi Graham N,
It is not a price floor that has/will create an oversupply of labour it is the UK's membership of the EU that has done that. Immigration has greatly increased the supply of labour - result low wages, although many economists, for reasons of political correctness, fail to recognise the normal rules of supply & demand apply to labour just as much as Kensington mansions.
Those in receipt of in-work welfare are being paid more than their headline wage rate, it's the taxpayer paying the difference. This has encouraged low wage, low productivity sectors to flourish. Osborne needs to sort out this huge distortion in our economy. The jobs that have been created (retail, car washes, security guards, coffee shops etc) are all permanently low productiviy that cannot support middle-class wages.
I for one am totally against my taxes supporting the likes of Starbucks, Tesco, Amazon, Whitbread, - the list is endless.
Too many economic realities are ignored for political reasons - rant over.
Bonitabeach
Bonitabeach,
I think you are talking about a very distinct issue (and some would question whether immigration is a source of "oversupply", or merely an increased supply) but I do agree with you that immigration is a very important factor in the determination of wages and am sympathetic to your point of view.
Immigration also greatly increases the supply of consumers. The basic effect of adding an immigrant to an economy is essentially nil, as you add 1 consumer at the same time as you add 1 worker.
Not if they are here to live in beds in sheds, save serious money and return to their home land, all while living working and spending within their own language group. They also send lots of cash home to family and relatives, whilst undermining wages and living conditions.
Whether they spend their wages on themselves or send them to relatives overseas does not ultimately make a difference. A pound sterling is really a voucher for UK Plc products, it's not useful for anything else but buying UK products. So the relatives will either spend it on UK exports, or sell their pounds to someone who needs them to pay for UK products. What else could they do with them?
As for undermining wages, you can as well see migrants at the bottom end as liberating UK incumbents from menial jobs, allowing them to switch to more interesting, better paid and more productive occupations. Division of labour is one of the few really positive sum games in economics.
Don't understand that. So if they build houses in Eastern Europe its still the same as spending it in the UK? They will not be buying many UK products in eastern europe.
Sorry you lost me completely! So money remitted abroad directly from wages is spent in the UK economy, because it was earned in sterling?
Lets take a extreme example, say 2m greeks come and work in UK, they spend hardly anything and send on average £10k home each year, so that is that £20,000,000,000 so that will benefit the UK economy and not benefit Greece?
Why is that extreme? http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/jan/30/migrants-billions-overshadow-aid
"The UK is the the fourth biggest sender of remittances in the world, the sixth most popular place to emigrate to and the eighth most common place to emigrate from.
There are 7m immigrants living in the UK – about 11% of the population, notably from India (658k),Poland (521k) and Pakistan (452k).
4.7m Brits live overseas, particularly in Australia (1.2m), the US (701k) and Canada (675k)."
Money in $7.9 Billion
Money out $23.2 Billion
Well extreme as 2m from one country, Greece. Brits living abroad probably are not sending much money back to the UK. Unlike many from Europe and Asia.
As for immigrants in UK you should look at towns like Boston to see the impact. Yes they do jobs that people here are not keen to do, problem is we are bringing from abroad and our people are not working.
Sorry, I updated the post with numbers we are looking at a net loss of $16 billion in 2013! This from the low paid sectors that Paul points out are most likely to spend back into the economy.
I am not an immigrant basher, indeed I am a 2nd generation immigrant! Price of Empire ;)
I just don't think that the whole mass immigration thing has been allowed to be thought through in public and smells of Ponzi economics.
That maybe so if they are working but it does cause problems such as housing, pressure on schools, hospitals etc. Demand for housing will push up prices which we have seen recently in rents. Think 65m people in this country is probably enough, problem is the south east has about 25m
Not sure about the living wage. I can see companies employing more younger staff as under 25 the wage is lower, not sure of the rate? So it could be good for young people getting a job. Tax credits is not a good system I agree. The problem with a set amount is it good in cheap areas but in London its not enough. It could also cause inflation, so although wages rise then so does cost of living.
Personally I wouldn't be buying Aldermore or any other bank with significant Buy to Let lendings. I think George Osborne is trying to deflate the house price bubble slowly, but bubbles tend to go pop.
There are several policies which will be good for the housing market. A lot of Buy to Let landlords have just seen their tiny 3 or 4% yields, assuming of course no voids, maintenance or other problems, disappear. Supply will increase as some of them start to give up. That should start to drive prices down.
The benefit cap will catch a lot more people than the reduction to £26000 did. That will put pressure on private landlords who rent to housing benefit claimants, who will potentially be losing up to £ 500 a month.
The tax credit changes will hit a lot of people hard. A lot of people who are struggling to find the mortgage payment or rent are going to be finding it even more difficult. Again there is downward pressure on house prices and more particularly rents.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders seem to be worried about the SMI change.
So all in all the pressure on rents and house prices is all downward. Any highly leveraged Buy to let landlord who isn't panicking yet, should be.
Hi Paul,
I agree with most of what you say about the budget, including that the new living wage is a good idea, but I'm not entirely convinced by this:
I'm not sure there is any real correlation between what somebody earns and their level of motivation or the customer service they provide. The low-paid support workers at the hostels I visit in the course of my day job are amongst the most motivated and dedicated people I have ever come across. Some of the highly paid professionals that I have come across in other walks of life seem to treat the customer as an inconvenience that is delaying them from their next G&T at the golf club!
I stress though that I am entirely in favour of all companies paying their staff a living wage, rather than effectively having the government making up the difference in the form of tax credits.
Steve
Steve
"I'm not sure there is any real correlation between what somebody earns and their level of motivation or the customer service they provide. The low-paid support workers at the hostels I visit in the course of my day job are amongst the most motivated and dedicated people I have ever come across."
There was a happy chappie who worked in some sort of Warehouse who said exactly the opposite on TV yesterday, some if not most employees strangely probably do appreciate being appreciated and not ripped off by employers - and getting a reasonable wage where you can hold your head high is good for confidence - or it was for that guy yesterday who seemed genuine. One aside is that when you pay higher wages there is a larger pool of potential good employees so its easier to get rid of the dross improving productivity - not sure where the dross go but perhaps they will need to up there game a little bit or may be more motivated to do so now that they are getting better rewarded.
Steve, you are spot on with your last paragraph and I think this is the crucial point about the lIving wage. Company pays as little as it can, charges market rate for product to maximise profit, government subsidises wages, government increases profits of corporations paying minimum wage.
In my opinion kooky.
BUDGET- I fail to see the euphoria in the new minimum wage. All this will do is produce higher taxes and Ni for the government ,and as an employer we will just increase prices to the public to cover the extra costs of employment, and thus generate more VAT revenue.
ONLY ONE WINNER HERE, THE GOVERNMENT.
Why in 'giving the Nation a pay rise' is Mr Osborne so smug, its costing him nothing but gaining him more revenue at our expense.
Hi jubilee
Why at our expense? Here is my comment on Martin Wolf's article over at the FT today in full. It may not be that eloquent or complete (I have a business paying minimum wage to run and am therefore time constrained) but hopefully it gives the gist of what I think?
Dear Mr Wolf
Please would you explain why the living wage will likely turn out, in your words, to be a mistake?
I am a right wing Tory and was anti the minimum wage when first introduced but have come to realise that the wage setting market is dysfunctional. Therefore what happens is that the UK government subsidises wages through in work benefits and thereby enabling say Macdonalds to sell a burger for 99p or supermarkets to seek product for less or hotels/restaurants to offer services for less than we should be really paying for them.
There maybe consequences to insisting that the above companies pay a living wage of higher unemployment and in work benefit costs are replaced by out of work benefits and higher use of technology and a rise in productivity of those in work but the overall productivity of those of working age remaining the same.
But I think the theoretical inherent "goodness" of corporations paying a living wage (rather than it effected by government subsidy) needs to be tried in practice rather that trying to determine whether it will work using a computerised economic model".
I think Osborne is right to introduce it and I do think it a shame that left, right and centre have not welcomed it.
Yours sincerely
Michael Broom Smith
I did the survey but no space for comments on the budget?
The tax on dividends has cause much confusion and now I'm even more confused how it will work.