Who’s afraid of the RPI-CPIH judicial review?
RPI trading booming as the market ignores the legal challenge to the transition
The UK inflation market is unique in that the parties divide very cleanly into those that need to receive it and those that need to pay it away.
Receivers, such as pension funds, often need to receive inflation in order to hedge future liabilities that are linked to it. Meanwhile payers, often corporates, have revenues linked to inflation that they want to pay away as a hedge.
So if you change the inflation benchmark to one that is around 1% a year lower – as the UK is planning to do after 2030 – pretty much all pension funds holding assets where they receive cashflows linked to inflation will be upset. With analysis from the Association of British Insurers showing the move could cost pensioners £96 billion ($136.1 billion) by 2030, there’s always a risk that like-minded funds might club together to try and stop the move.
In April, that’s exactly what happened. Trustees of pension funds at Marks and Spencer, Ford and BT lodged a judicial review seeking to challenge the UK’s planned recalibration of the retail prices index (RPI) to the consumer price index including owner-occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH).
RPI has been the UK’s main inflation index since 1956, but has long been seen as a flawed measure. Instead, the UK Statistics Authority has since championed CPIH as a more accurate calculation of inflation than RPI, and in November 2020, the UK Treasury confirmed that RPI would be converted into CPIH after 2030.
The trustees – which together represent nearly 450,000 members and £83 billion in assets – argue that the UKSA lacks the authority to recalibrate RPI and that both it and the government failed to take into account the recalibration’s impact on legacy RPI users when reaching their decision in November.
If successful, the judicial review could lead to changes being made to the government’s current RPI reform plans, such as the date it takes place and whether any form of compensation will be given to market participants set to lose out from a lower rate of inflation – something the government has previously mooted.
That uncertainty might sound worrying if you’re a trader thinking about putting a new inflation swap on right now. But current market pricing shows that traders don’t expect the legal challenge to be successful.
Toby Huth-Wallis, an inflation trader at Nomura, says that if the transition were fully priced in, the future difference between RPI and CPI – known as the wedge – would converge to zero at the 2030 point.
These levels are sensitive to transition announcements. Before the November announcement that 2030 would be the date for RPI transition, that forward wedge sat at -25 basis points. It changed to -10bp after the 2030 date was confirmed. There has been no obvious movement that could be linked to the news of the judicial review, says Huth-Wallis, indicating a lack of concern from the market.
In fact, now that the 2030 transition is priced in, traders say longer-dated RPI trading has picked up considerably due to the rise in lumber and iron ore prices, the ongoing Brexit trade frictions and pent-up demand from liability-driven investment managers that had put off some of their inflation trading until the 2030 date was confirmed.
If the judicial review is successful, and RPI receivers could continue to receive higher inflation cashflow payments than were factored into the price at the outset, it would be seen as a cherry on the top, rather than a key part of the trade’s rationale.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
CDS market revamp aims to fix the (de)faults
Proposed makeover for determinations committees tackles concerns over conflicts of interest
BofA quants propose new model for when to hold, when to sell
Closed-form formula helps market-makers optimise exit strategies
Are regulators wrong to think of AT1s as debt?
Bank capital bonds face criticism. One answer might be to treat them as ‘fixed-income equity’
How Risk.net’s robots unlocked Ucits trade data
Machine learning tool helps reveal the largest European derivatives users – and who they trade with
Running the numbers on Barr’s Basel III endgame revisions
Fed vice-chair’s plan to ease capital requirements for big banks still lacks critical details
Another post-Libor rate aims to clear Iosco bar
After two rivals were slapped down by the benchmark overseer last year, will Axi fare differently?
Nvidia is growing up. It’s not settling down
Chip maker is a mega cap that doesn’t act like one
FX forwards dealers face added challenges in P&L analysis
Mark-out tools for forwards and swaps trading may not be a panacea