If you thought Brics were a good investment prospect... try Juni !

Outlook

(PA)

Today’s column has a difference. I’m going to make you all pots of money by telling you about my exciting new investment thesis. It’s called Juni (for Japan, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland). These four are all island nations with developed economies, and I reckon they’ll prove to be brilliant places in which to park your cash in these uncertain times.

Worried about an emerging markets crisis? Nervous about the OECD’s alarm bells about global trade? Just think Juni! By 2050 my four will be at the head of the economic pack with… erm… well, big GDP growth.

Watch this space for a brand new fund that will keep your money safe from the financial storms that are sure to sweep the world’s continents and make me loads of money in the process.

What’s that? You don’t want to ask me about where you can get your hands on this? The only question you’d pose is about my sanity?

Here’s the thing: something very like the scenario I’ve outlined actually happened. It’s just that the acronym used was Bric, rather than Juni. The link between the four countries in the former acronym (Brazil, Russia, India, China) was that they were all big and at a more or less similar level of economic development. But just like the islands in Juni, they had nothing much else in common.

However, because it was Goldman Sachs’s investment guru Jim – now Baron – O’Neill who came up with it, rather than a snarky columnist like me, the financial community excitedly bought in, and with real money, when Goldman launched a fund on the back of it.

They ignored the caveat contained in a later Goldman paper outlining how the four Brics would dominate the world’s economy by 2050. Sorry I meant to say “could be larger than the G6 (the UK, US, Germany, France, Japan, Italy) in dollar terms in 2050”. That caveat was “if things go well”.

Which they haven’t, although the problems that the Bric countries have faced are all (surprise, surprise) starkly different.

In the meantime Goldman’s dismal Bric fund has been quietly folded into its wider emerging markets fund.

Sadly, it’s probably too much to hope that Bric backers will have learned their lesson from this and won’t be too long before some bright spark comes up with a similar folly. Juni, anyone?

Going Dutch didn’t help Royal Bank of Scotland

We often say that Royal Bank of Scotland nearly broke Britain’s economy, but much of the blame for its near-collapse lies at the door of ABN Amro, the Dutch bank whose takeover and break-up was piloted by RBS.

A small piece of that €70bn (£50bn) edifice still bears the name and now resides in the hands of the Dutch government. It had to bail out the Dutch parts of ABN which had been bought by Fortis, as part of the break-up. Dutch taxpayers also had to bail out the Dutch parts of Fortis (no jokes about double Dutch, please).

Nowadays, the rump ABN is doing very nicely, reporting a 13 per cent rise in third-quarter profits as its home economy gathers momentum. It all bodes well for its return to life as a publicly listed company – the Dutch state is planning a re-privatisation.

This will be accomplished through a legal process called “Stichting”, that will protect the company from hostile takeovers and from the attentions of activist shareholders.

It’s likely to result in Dutch taxpayers getting less than they might have hoped for, but when you consider the mess that was created when activists delivered the bank to RBS, the Dutch government’s desire to keep the bank under its thumb, if not under its ownership, is rather understandable.

The thing is, it was ABN Amro taking over lots of companies that led to its problems, and ultimately to it being taken over itself. Perhaps the Dutch government should think about ways to create a reverse Stichting if it wants to keep its taxpayers truly safe from a repeat performance.

Why not tip off the public about mean restaurateurs?

It would surely be worth a small gratuity if the Business Innovation & Skills Committee could help fix the scandalous behaviour of restaurants which steal the tips diners hand to waiting staff.

The committee has launched an inquiry into how the Government can “ensure greater transparency and limit the amount an employer can keep” in the wake of The Independent’s disclosures about the appalling behaviour of some restaurateurs.

But perhaps there’s a way to fix the problem that the BIS Committee might like to consider: you’ll have probably noticed the star ratings given to restaurants and takeaways under the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, in England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Dining in a zero or one-star rated establishment is not a particularly attractive prospect, and those in that category have a powerful motivation to improve.

The committee might like to weigh up the benefits a similar scheme as regards tipping. Restaurants could be required to display their tip rating alongside those for food hygiene, with five stars going only to restaurants that don’t indulge in cynical wheezes such as levying admin fees when tips are paid, for example, via cards.

Diners will then have the option of shunning those establishments which don’t play fair. Here’s my tip: it might just work.