Skip to main content

Back to the ‘70s? Pay rises are just back to normality

Artemis UK Smaller Companies’ William Tamworth says too many investors still struggle to comprehend that the decade that followed the Global Financial Crisis was an anomaly – and above-inflation wage increases for public sector workers are just the latest sign of a return to the status quo.

The three-day working week. Bags of rubbish piled high in Leicester Square. Gravediggers refusing to bury the dead. If you believe certain elements of the right-wing press, the new government’s immediate capitulation on public-sector pay rises risks taking us back to the 1970s, when trade unions had the power to make such dystopian scenes a reality.

However, if anyone wants to see what sort of impact the recent pay rises handed out to train drivers, nurses and junior doctors has had in the past, we would point them to a decade that was not only more recent, but a lot less dramatic – the 2000s.

Get used to it

Let’s take the recent 14.94% pay rise handed to train drivers, spread out over three years1 when cumulative inflation is expected to be about 11%2.

After more than a decade of austerity, and the past few years when the previous government was trying to keep a lid on inflation, this seems generous. But when you compare it to the period between 2001 and 2010, the difference is imperceptible: during this period, inflation rose at an average pace of 2.2% a year3, but public sector workers saw wage increases – in real terms – of about 2% a year4. Pay rises in the private sector weren’t too far behind5.

Real average (mean) annual earnings per employee in the public and private sectors, 2001−2023

Line graph showing real average mean annual earnings per employee in the public and private sectors 01-23

Source: ONS average non-seasonally-adjusted weekly earnings by sector (table EARN02). • Note: Figures shown are average mean total weekly earnings (including bonuses and arrears) over the previous 12 months, multiplied by 52, deflated using monthly CPIH. We exclude financial services from the public sector so that it is not affected by nationalisation of banks and subsequent trends in pay in those banks.

Now, I am not here to offer political opinions or discuss the rights and wrongs of government policy. I am far more interested in what happens next. With public-sector wages still below 2010 levels in real terms and the Labour party in power, we believe further above-inflation increases are likely in the years ahead.

This sends a powerful signal to employees in the private sector – and most companies we meet with are discussing pay rises of about 3 to 5% next year.

Pricing power

So what does this mean for investors? In such an environment, it is important to invest in companies that have the pricing power to cover-off this future cost pressure.

This is one of the reasons why we tend to like market leaders in specialist niches – in our experience, these tend to be better able to push through price increases than smaller competitors.

But it is important not to overpay for such businesses. Another impact of cost-push inflation is that it has made a return to the era of ultra-low interest rates unlikely. It would therefore be dangerous to bet that growth stocks will recover the (exceptionally high) ratings achieved in the latter years of quantitative easing.

The extent of value’s outperformance

Over much of the past 10 to 15 years, it has often felt that valuation – what you pay for a share – has not mattered. Lessons from the previous 50 would suggest the exact opposite. Small-cap investing is often associated with ‘growth’ investing, but it is actually ‘value’ that wins, and handsomely, over the long run.

Cumulative performance of value relative to growth within Deutsche Numis Smaller Companies (-InvTrust) index

line graph showing cumulative performance of value relative to growth within Deutsche Numis Smaller Companies

Source: Deutsche Numis as at 31 December 2023. 

This doesn’t mean the companies we favour aren’t growing. It’s just they are doing so at a rate of about 9% – not enough to get traditional ‘growth’ investors excited, but this is reflected in the valuation you can buy them at: an average of 12.5x earnings, or an 8% free cashflow yield.

We suggest investors also refuse to compromise on balance sheet strength – our median holding is forecast to have almost no net debt by 2025. This is important in an environment where the cost of borrowing, although beginning to fall, is likely to remain high.

Strong balance sheets give companies time and the optionality to invest in their future. This is why we argue it is better to invest in 'boring' businesses that have demonstrated the ability to stand resolute in a crisis than in the racy start-ups tipped to disrupt them. These more exciting stocks often disappoint – and fail to turn a profit in the interim.

No return to the ‘70s

The era of trade union dominance in the UK was brought to an end by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, who was once misquoted as saying: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

By refusing to base your strategy on the anomalous era of 2010 to 2020, we think investors lower the risk of owning businesses contending with a similar fate.

1(5% backdated to 2022 to 2023, 4.75% for 2023 to 2024 and 4.5% for 2024 to 2025) https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/train-drivers-pay-offer-aslef-2024/)
2Bank of England Inflation Calculator
3Bank of England Inflation Calculator
4https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay
5https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-public-sector-pay

Investment in a fund concerns the acquisition of units/shares in the fund and not in the underlying assets of the fund.

Reference to specific shares or companies should not be taken as advice or a recommendation to invest in them.

For information on sustainability-related aspects of a fund, visit the relevant fund page on this website.

For information about Artemis’ fund structures and registration status, visit artemisfunds.com/fund-structures

Any research and analysis in this communication has been obtained by Artemis for its own use. Although this communication is based on sources of information that Artemis believes to be reliable, no guarantee is given as to its accuracy or completeness.

Any statements are based on Artemis’ current opinions and are subject to change without notice. They are not intended to provide investment advice and should not be construed as a recommendation.

Third parties (including FTSE and Morningstar) whose data may be included in this document do not accept any liability for errors or omissions. For information, visit artemisfunds.com/third-party-data.

Important information
The intention of Artemis’ ‘investment insights’ articles is to present objective news, information, data and guidance on finance topics drawn from a diverse collection of sources. Content is not intended to provide tax, legal, insurance or investment advice and should not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or investment by Artemis or any third-party. Potential investors should consider the need for independent financial advice. Any research or analysis has been procured by Artemis for its own use and may be acted on in that connection. The contents of articles are based on sources of information believed to be reliable; however, save to the extent required by applicable law or regulations, no guarantee, warranty or representation is given as to its accuracy or completeness. Any forward-looking statements are based on Artemis’ current opinions, expectations and projections. Articles are provided to you only incidentally, and any opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. The source for all data is Artemis, unless stated otherwise. The value of an investment, and any income from it, can fall as well as rise as a result of market and currency fluctuations and you may not get back the amount originally invested.