We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Budget commentary: Chancellor is trying to keep up his fiscal-guard ahead of the ‘Brexit’ vote

Home / Press Centre / Budget commentary: Chancellor is trying to keep up his fiscal-guard ahead of the ‘Brexit’ vote

16 March 2016
Macro Economics

Neil Williams, Group Chief Economist at Hermes Investment Management, sets out his reaction to today’s UK Budget:rnrnWith the ‘Brexit’ vote looming, the chancellor was never going to wantonly let his fiscal-guard down today, and deviate widely from his aim of returning the underlying deficit ‘to the black’ by 2019/20. This target he has preserved. But, to do so, he has had to take leeway in the intervening years, as the “cocktail of risks” he’s been flagging takes its toll on the OBR’s growth and tax revenue assumptions. This means the cost of preserving the 2019/20 target-date is an even steeper glide-path to surplus before then.rnrnThe intervening slippage amounts to a meaty 2 percentage points of GDP, compared with his previous plans. This has been limited by the funds still in his ‘back-pocket’ from bank proceeds and the BoE’s deferral of asset sales.rnrnAnd, as usual, he managed to pull some ‘rabbits from hats’, such as on saving, over-indexing of personal allowances, and corporation tax. But, while helpful to longer term growth and competiveness, his measures short-term may have more micro than macro effects on the economy.rnrnSo, let’s not get carried away. The fiscal screw will have to stay tight if he is to hit his target of grinding down the underlying budget deficit and returning ‘to the black’ in 2019/20.rnrnFirst, the deficit is still high. Even including special items like bank sales, QE, and milder inflation and interest-rate assumptions, the 3.8%-of-GDP headline deficit for 2015/16 could be the G7’s widest after Japan.rnrnSecond, the recovery should have squeezed the deficit more than it has. While the headline deficit falls on sustaining growth, the structural, less growth-sensitive part will fall by less, begging further reform and consolidation.rnrnAnd, only in 2015/16 is the net-debt-to-GDP ratio expected to have peaked, at 84% – disappointing given real GDP is about 7% up on its pre-crisis peak. This 84% ratio is more than twice Japan’s was, when Japan limped into a ‘lost decade’ in the mid 1990s.rnrnFinancing this debt may become more troublesome if the UK has to deal with the effects of a ‘Brexit’. Should it occur, conventional gilts may benefit initially from the perceived hit to growth. But, this could be short lived, given about one third of the £1.3trn gilts outstanding is backed by international investors who will be sensitive to both currency and ratings risk.rnrnIn which case, it’s possible that dealing with a ‘Brexit’ and a hit to growth may need the BoE to reactivate its QE. And, with the main rating agencies already twitchy, an ever bigger fiscal loosening today would have added to the chance of a ratings downgrade in the event of a ‘Brexit’.

Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Andrew Parry
  • Claire Gavini
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Eoin Murray
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ingrid Holmes
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martin Todd
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Neil Williams
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Crockford
  • Tommaso Mancuso

Find posts by category

  • macro economics

Press contacts