We discuss the speech, the factors that are likely to shape the Budget, and what options the Chancellor has to encourage growth, balance tax and spend, and calm the markets.
Host
Philippa Lamb
Guests
- Frances Haque, Chief Economist, Santander UK
- David Wooding, Political commentator and former Sunday Express Editor
- Suren Thiru, Chief Economist, ICAEW
Producer
Natalie Chisholm
Series Lead
Mark Rowland
Transcript:
Philippa Lamb: Welcome back. We're recording this on September 7th, and this morning, for the first time we heard a speech from the new Chancellor. It's interesting timing with the bond markets twitchy and his first budget just seven weeks away. So why did he choose to speak now? What did he say and did it shed any light on what we might expect from the budget on October 28th?
[Teaser audio] David Wooding: The interest rates have caused him a lot of trouble because that rise means that the head rumours have shrunk dramatically. So in order to keep inside the fiscal rules, he's got a lot more juggling to do.
[Teaser audio] Frances Haque: It could possibly be even pro-growth if you could actually get that deficit under control. Not least, it's £100 billion a year that we're paying in interest on this debt, which is a lot of money that could be put, let's face it, to a lot better use.
[Teaser audio] Suren Thiru: They're focused on the small stuff. So I know it said ‘cut VAT for household energy bills, where does this stuff on the slot machines change?’. Where is some of the big difficult stuff like defence, like welfare? Some of the big issues out there, they've yet to tackle yet.
PL: Joining me to discuss this, a podcast regular, Frances Haque, Chief Economist at Santander UK, former Sunday Express editor turned political commentator, David Wooding, and ICAEW's own in-house economist, Suren Thiru. Welcome all.
FH: Thank you.
PL: So David, tell me, why do you think he chose now to talk?
DW: I think he had to say something because as we know, the bond markets have been very twitchy going up to about 5.89% on 10-year gilds the other day. Obviously things that Andy Burnham has said in the past about not being in hock to the bond markets and so forth, and the fear that this is going to be a tax borrow and spend government because of all the uncosted promises that the new prime minister has given. I think John Healey had to say something to calm the markets, but also to roll the pitch for what's going to be a very painful budget in a few weeks time. He's got to tell the general public that it is going to be tough and that there will be tax rises of some kind and there will be a bit of a squeeze on our incomes, but that they've got optimism on the horizon and they've got our best interests at heart. And at the same time to calm down the markets and say that they're not going to do any profligate spending and try and keep everybody calmed down, that's basically it.
PL: Steady as it goes, yeah. Frances, does that sound about right to you? He's just back from the G20, isn't he? Of course we did have this very unfortunate announcement from Jaguar Land Rover about job cuts as well, so it wasn't a great landscape.
FH: No. But interestingly we did have data out this morning that was suggesting that the labour market is starting to stabilise. So interesting to have obviously the comment from Jaguar and Land Rover as well as that data, which obviously is very important. I can understand them talking about turning a corner in the sense that actually economic growth has held up much better than expected. In fact, for the first half of the year I think the UK is still leading the way in the G7 in terms of economic growth. Whether that continues, that's for later, but yes, I mean, I would agree that I think, we're what, seven weeks out of the budget? I think you do need to start setting the landscape. What we don't want is a repeat of last year, where obviously it won't be quite so long, but having all these things being dropped into the press and then that causing a lot of uncertainty, so maybe that was their way of trying to deal with that.
PL: Yeah, because they trailed a whole bunch of stuff last year, didn't they? Then some of it stuck and some of it didn't stick and it was almost like they were focus grouping the budget before they actually did it. But the general overarching theme, as both of you have said, it's optimism, isn't it? Trying to reinstill some optimism into the economy? Is that how it sounded to you, Suren?
ST: There was some optimism. There's also realism as well. The soundbite I got from the speech was he talks about creating a buffer against uncertainty. Of course the world is full of uncertainty in moments that notably means, as David talked about, high taxes or less spending, that he almost trailed out in some ways. I think he's almost a bit like a juggler at the moment. He's sort of juggling some of the near term pressures on households and businesses. We've already seen some action on that over the last few months, balancing out these sort of quite tricky fiscal picture, dig around the public finances, of course bond markets as well, borrow cost increasing as well, but also trying to reshape the long term pitch for the UK economy, how you get growth driving much more faster than we've seen over the last decade or so.
PL: Yeah, and he was in lockstep, wasn't he? With the PM on the theme of devolving powers, devolving tax, I think the income tax to the regions, more income tax to the regions tax receipts and generally encouraging this regional growth boost. That seemed to be the plan, didn't it?
FH: It's a plan. I'm not sure it's quite enough, but it's certainly a positive move.
PL: There were various initiatives weren't there about partnering locally and a bit more cash here and there, nothing hugely momentous?
FH: I don't think there was anything there that most people didn't already know about. He talked about the £150 million for the British Business Bank? That was already known about. Then he talked a bit about the Northern 500, which obviously is more to do with devolution and things like that. So I don't think there was anything in there that was particularly surprising or new. But I think from the point of view of actually setting out your stall, that's how it came across to me at least, anyway.
PL: Do we know where that £150 million's coming from?
FH: I don't know off the top of my head. It'll be interesting to see what's happening. It depends how it's calculated in terms of, it is a little bit awkward in terms of the fiscal position quite where it comes from. I don't know whether it matters in terms of things like the headroom and all the rest of it, it is a slightly different story. We shall wait. We'll have to wait and see what they say in the budget for that one.
PL: David doing away with red tape was another big theme. I don't think I can remember a government that didn't say they didn't want to do that in recent years. It's always a thing, isn't it?
DW: Businesses are always asking for red tape to be caught. Yeah. There's always too much red tape and that would be welcome if he's able to do it. Of course you've got the British Chambers of Commerce ahead of the speech calling for him to abolish the triple lock, which is a very embarrassing thing to come out.
PL: I saw that, that story ran this morning, didn't it?
DW: Yeah, so the triple lock over two years, it would save £3.3 billion, which is really small fry when you think that in the month of July alone, we spent £30 billion on welfare in total. And that was up 2 billion on the previous month, which is going to save them, not a lot. But nevertheless, the British Chambers of commerce want that money ploughing into cutting national insurance contributions for the under 25's in order to get more young people into work, which is probably a good initiative. The problem that John Healey has, and Andy Burnham for that matter, is they're both boxed in by the 19 sorry, the 20, showing my age, the 2024 General election manifesto which says the triple lock will be protected. More and more, you think with tax rises possibly on the horizon, a general election is the only way that Andy Burnham's going to get out of this tight corner because as time goes on, he's going to need money to deliver on his promises and there's nowhere to get it from.
PL: Yeah, and I think they've both verbally recommitted to the triple lock recently, haven't they?
ST: Then this feeds into a wider challenge that successive Prime Minister's chances have had, where they've boxed off large parts of tax raising opportunities and that's led them with very little wiggle room in terms of needing to raise taxes. So that means when they do raise taxes they have to go further than they maybe would like. Employees National insurance is one example where they go a lot further just to raise some revenue. One thing, and I think one of Prime Minister's older advisors Lord Neil talked about, if you did in the triple lock and that would immediately calm bond markets. They are really serious about looking at all options around, creating more stable public finances.
PL: Yes. He's really been talking that idea up in the media, hasn't he? Absolutely. Every turn. But it doesn't sound like it's going to happen, does it?
DW: I don't think so. In terms of taxes, whatever he does is going to have a contrary effect. You mentioned, Suren, the Employer's National Insurance contributions that has an effect on employment and therefore tax revenues and everything he does is going to have a counter effect. So the only real way out of this for him in my view, is a general election. But whether Andy Burnham has got the bottle to go for it just yet, or whether his back benches, many of whom will lose seats, will allow him, is another question.
PL: What do we think, Frances?
FH: It's been interesting hearing about that in the newspapers, because that wasn't something that I'd originally thought that might happen, but it's been more and more talked about, obviously Kimmy Badenoch not changing her cabinet in order to perhaps deal with that. Certainly we know that Farage has been talking about it perhaps unsurprisingly, but yes, it seems to have gained a lot more traction, which is interesting over the last month or so. So, possibly, to be honest, the fact that they cannot raise income tax is a real issue for them because at the end of the day, that is the biggest source of revenue that they've got to be able to deal with the issues. Having said that, I would say from a bond market's perspective, I don't think they can just raise taxes. I do think that the bond market is going to want to see something around curtailing spending. Obviously things like the triple lock would be one way of doing that, but it's difficult to see that happening without cross party consensus, to be honest, because otherwise, when we come to a general election that just becomes something that all the parties put back in and try and fight the election on. So I think there's got to be a bit more consensus across parties on that one. But I do think that the bond markets will want to see something around spending and how they're going to tighten that. Because at the end of the day it was actually quite an interesting piece that Andy Haldane wrote. I think it was in the FT, it was around Keynesian economics and are we at the end of it? He talked about the fact that sometimes actually more government spending could actually lead to less growth for a variety of different reasons, because if companies and households believe that you are just going to raise taxes in the next round, then rather than spending, they're going to be saving things like that. So you can see that actually it could possibly be even pro-growth if you could actually get that deficit under control. Not least it's a hundred billion a year that we're spending in paying interest on this debt, which is a lot of money that could be put to a lot better use.
PL: Yes. I can't remember exactly what the phrase was about how many government departments that covered this morning, but it was telling at the time. Putting it in context of just how much money that is. It's not getting any better, is it? Before we move even more, I think, onto what we might see in the budget, interestingly, what he didn't talk about, obviously weren't really expecting a lot of detail or anything, but he didn't talk about defence at all, I don't think, did he?
FH: No, I don't think I heard it.
PL: Obviously we didn't hear anything about a wealth tax and there has been talk in the press this morning about gambling, the gambling industry hasn't there?
FH: Yes, something about slot machines.
PL: What do we think about that? Does it matter? I have no idea what sort of revenue that might raise. Does anyone know?
FH: I don't know off the top of my head, but I can't imagine it's going to be a lot.
ST: I think this goes back to a wider point where we've seen some of the giveaways from the government, they're focused a lot on the small stuff. So I know it said ‘cut VAT for household energy bills, where does this stuff on the slot machines change?’. Where is some of the big difficult stuff like defence, like welfare? Some of the big issues out there, they've yet to tackle yet. So that's almost going to be the asset test for this government, new Chancellor and Prime Minister, how they tackle these sort of big meaty issues facing them.
PL: It's tricky isn't it? Because of the economic landscape, it's not great. I mean it's complicated isn't it? We've got the conflict in Iran, Ukraine ongoing, not really seeing an end to earth either of those. We've had this exceptionally hot, dry summer and all the issues around that and we've got El Nino and we are looking at a very wet and difficult growing season in the winter. All that's going to add up to inflation, isn't it? Food, definitely food inflation and just general inflationary pressures across the board. Is that what you are expecting? Looking at the economists in the room?
FH: Yes. Certainly food inflation we've seen an increase in the futures of food prices and things like that. So that naturally tells us that food prices will be going up, perhaps not in the next month or two, but certainly going into 2027, which will mean that headline inflation is higher than we thought it would be. Obviously you've got droughts but then with the possibility of wet conditions as well. This isn't good and of course you've got the energy price cap, which I think to be fair, most of us at the beginning of the year, for example, weren't expecting another rise certainly in October and then into next year. But it's looking that way now and obviously as long as the conflict in the Middle East goes on, the chances are that energy prices are going to stay higher for longer. So that will also feed in to inflation. The problem with those two is that obviously everyone pays those and pays it on a regular basis and it really matters to people. So inflation expectations then start to rise. That will then obviously be a problem for the Bank of England and Bankrate.
PL: Because as you said Suren, there's the big thorny issues for them to deal with and energy costs. That's definitely one of them, isn't it?
ST: Yes, as an example we talked about the cut in VAT that's coming in October that's been effectively wiped or it will be wiped out by the increase in energy bills in the same month. And certainly as was mentioned, inflation is going to be rising around 3.5% financially, but in the year. That's a problem for the financial markets or the bond markets. That's another big thing they're worried about, whereas the finances is rising inflation.
PL: Yes. Because other nations have done a bit better than us at reigning that back to target, haven't they?
ST: Yeah, I mean over the last couple of years we've been more susceptible to the inflation risk than maybe some other countries. We've seen higher spikes in inflation and dealing with those sort of issues. Supply side economy, which is constraining activity in the UK is one of the main reasons for that. As well as other things around the energy market and those sort of things. But that is clearly going to be a big challenge for the chancellor going the budget inflation is starting to rise.
PL: Those military conflicts, that's more trade route disruption isn't it? Ongoing without a clear end in sight directly inflationary across all sorts of sectors, I'm guessing?
FH: Yeah, and I also heard something around the Panama Canal might be reducing the number of ships that can go through it, that would also then have an effect. I think there was a report out this morning. So I mean from a supply side perspective, that's not looking great either. Sorry!
PL: I mean is there anything Healey can do to head off these pressures?
FH: I mean, it's a tough one given you've got a labour back bench that we know will take any kind of reduction in spending less than well perhaps is the best way of putting it. So from his point of view, it is very difficult and he's hamstrung by what taxes he can raise. So it is quite difficult to know what they could do because increasing borrowing is just not likely, just not credible, particularly now that we've seen the increase in bonds and things like that. So yeah, what he can do is probably only a few small things, but there are things you could do. Certainly in terms of deregulation yet that would be good trying to create maybe a more stable environment because that has been part of the problem. If we look back at the last two budgets and you look at growth, you've seen growth actually quite high for the last couple of years and then in the first half of the year, and then it tails off as we get into the budget and there's so much uncertainty because we don't know what's happening about tax rises, et cetera, et cetera. So, there is something around that where you could actually try and create some more stability. So businesses know what they can do or at least what they might face over the next couple of years. Obviously, it's always difficult in the longer term because you don't know who's going to be in government, but I think that could help. I mean we have seen an increase in consumer and business confidence. How long that lasts is difficult to know. It might track down again as we move towards the budget, but part of that is based on the fact that people think maybe things will improve. But stability really is key I think here and that is something he could do.
PL: We have this business rates discounted for hospitality. Do you think there's any chance that would be extended, expanded?
ST: One thing he hasn't done is really provide that much support with businesses to elevate these cross pressures. So you may see something thinking around business rates, because that's a clear area, particularly locally. That's a key challenge for businesses. But I think the broader point is, I think what is quite interesting, particularly focusing on businesses, if you look at the first half of the year, actually businesses, while confidence was weak in the first half of the year, that's pretty, pretty resilient. So we saw a lot of businesses adapting, bringing forward activity stockpiling to guard against shortages of price rises. So we saw a bit of resilience there and that came up a little bit in the headline growth figures. The question is, over the second half of the year, as the place starts to rise, as wide economic growth probably slows from what it is at the moment, without resilience, is tested even further and that starts to weaken. And then we see that being in things like investment decisions and wide economic activity.
PL: When we were talking about making this podcast last week, Frances, I remember you saying corporate borrowing is surprisingly high?
FH: It is, yes. I mean it's grown from - 1.6% In 2023 and peaks at about 9.5% in May. In July's numbers, it was about 8.5% growth. So that's quite a considerable increase. Remembering that 3% to 4% is more on average.
PL: But what are they doing with the money because we're in the kind of low investment?
FH: Yes. This is it. It hasn't quite translated, or at least it hasn't translated into the business investment numbers that we get through GDP growth at the moment. But they're either sitting on it and waiting for the right time to invest. In which case, coming back to this point about stability then becomes important. It may be that they're not quite sure with things like AI, because I'd be interested to know what everyone's saying, businesses elsewhere, but from ones I've talked to, we are not quite sure with AI quite what to do. So I think there's a little bit of hanging on and waiting, but understanding that actually the environment... Obviously we saw rates cut over that period from 2023 to now. They're obviously stable now. So I think that probably helped too, but I think people are still sitting on their hands a little bit because certainly things like AI, I'm not quite sure. Everyone feels quite so confident as to whether to invest yet or not.
PL: So it's watch and wait, more watch and wait?
FH: And a little bit more of watch and wait, which is obviously not really what we want to see.
PL: So, David, thinking about the actual budget seven weeks away, party conference season now. Are we expecting hints? Will we know anymore until the day, do you think?
DW: I would suspect after Rachel Reeves, the horrors of all the briefings, the leaks, and indeed, didn't Reuters actually have the whole budget on the morning of the budget?
PL: I'd forgotten that!
DW: Do you remember that? The whole budget was out before she'd even stood on her feet! I think John Healey would be holding things close to his chest or keeping that red box well and truly locked. But I think that obviously they will give a few goodies out to friendly press ahead of it. Just things that aren't going to upset the speaker too much, things that won't upset the markets in any way.
PL: Is there anything you are thinking might come?
DW: It's difficult to tell. He is completely hemmed in. And of course the interest rates has caused him a lot of trouble because that rise means that the headroom has shrunk dramatically. So in order to keep inside the fiscal rules he's got a lot more juggling to do. At the same time, all these positive vibes we've had from the Prime Minister— people have bought into it. He's bounced in the polls. So if this budget comes out, and it's going to be a bit of a downer on top of a party conference where there will be a victory lap at the end of this month, I think it's the 28th, 29th or 30s. There's going to be a big victory lap. Lots of upbeat speeches, lots of hope in every heart. Then another month down the road we get a budget, which knocks the window out of us again. That's when the polls will start to turn against Andy Burnham, and I think he probably has one eye on that as well.
PL: And of course, the OBR is going to give the chancellor their numbers before. Do we have any sort of sense of what that might be?
FH: I've not heard anything in particular that would suggest it's going to be massively supportive or anything like that. But I think, obviously the OB's going through massive change as well, so, it'll be interesting to see how, if anything changes under the new leadership and things.
PL: Yeah. Holding on to an unfair popularity booster, you can really see how that's obviously the end game here. Because otherwise it'll be such a flash in the pan, won't it? So brief before the bad news reality kicks in with the rain and the downturn weather, which, it does shift the mood, doesn't it?
DW: Yes. Frances was saying before he's got to sort all these fiscal problems out and that is a reason for having a general election. So he can put up taxes, get rid of the triple lock, do things that he's not allowed to do because he doesn't have a mandate for it. But also there's the political reason for having a general election, which is that his popularity will drain away before long. I reckon he's got another six weeks. I said he'd have 12 weeks when he first came in before it would start to drain away. I think he's had a good start. He's done well, but it's been a few small cheap, deliverable giveaways. We haven't had anything substantive on migration. We're moving off the economy now, but migration is there in the back, in the background on top, above the cost of living NHS waiting lists and crime is now creeping up that list of the most important issues. So he's got all these to deal with and all we've heard from him really is bus faires and devolution, number 10 North and little bits of giveaways here and there. So he's got to come up with something big. If his popularity starts to drain away and he needs to get his hand on some money, then I think that's why the other two parties, or I say the other two parties, the two we've mentioned, Reform and the Conservatives are saying that they think there might be a general election before too long.
PL: Of course before that there's going to be a by-election in London.
DW: Of course. Because Kier Starmer's given another farewell gift to Andy Burnham. The greens could do really well in that area, particularly if Zack Polanski gets the candidate.
PL: If Zack Polanski wins that, could Burnham really go to the country off the back of a loss like that?
DW: That may make him think twice, but he will know that it's only going to get worse because he's inherited a country that has multitude, myriad problems.
PL: Everyone has said there are huge issues to deal with here. We were toying last week when we were talking about this podcast with the notion of 'can any of these cans be realistically kicked down the road till next year to hold onto that feeling of optimism', but you thought not ,Frances, you think the pressures are too great and this stuff needs to be talked about now?
FH: I think everyone expects particularly on defence given what obviously happened with John Healey. I don't realistically think you can get away with not saying anything on it. So something will need to be said and quite how you square the circle on that one, to be honest with you, I don't know and I'm certainly not the only economist sitting there going, I'm not quite sure how you do that. So I'll be very interested to see what happens. But some of these things maybe you could kick down, but certainly that's not one of them and that's obviously probably one of the biggest commitments. 3%, that's quite a lot of money to find.
PL: I mean, everyone is going to be watching that like a hawk, aren't they, David? How specific is Mr. Healey going to have to be about that defence spending commitment? Because he's not really going to be able to fudge it, is he?
DW: All they've said so far is that they'll reach 3.5% by 2035 and of course the reason he resigned was the 3% by 2030, which is quite embarrassing for him.
PL: And also quite soon?
DW: Yeah, they're probably working on some form of linguistics to get round that, but people are not stupid and people will see that. But that's been kicked into the sort of spring, hasn't it? How they're going to fund defence along with welfare, that's another can that's been kicked down the road. So once he's paid for that he's then got his social care promise to deliver on, which again is not going to be cheap. So he's created a few other things, other spending commitments which he's got to find the money for. So I think it's nice being mayor of Manchester and telling us how positive and all the things he wants to do. But reality kicks in and I think it's kicked in for the chancellor as well who resigned over that issue and now finds he's facing the same problems that Rachel Reeves had before him.
PL: That really is a halt around his neck, isn't it? Because it's not long ago that he resigned, and it's the thing everyone's going to watch and it will really speak to credibility, won't it? On budget day if we don't hear something pretty concrete about defence spending, how badly would that dent him, do you think?
DW: It would be. Already people are whispering round in corridors of power that the real reason that John Healey resigned was because it was theatrics. It was drama of Westminster. It was the week before Andy Burnham, if you remember, he resigned on the Thursday, the following Thursday was the maker field by-election, where Andy Burnham came riding into Westminster on his white charger to steal the crown off the head of Kier Starmer. Now, people are speculating that perhaps he was given a deal to become Chancellor if he made a dramatic intervention. That might just be spin. It might have some truth in it. John Healey would tell you that was not the reason that he was a man of principle, and he resigned because he wanted the money for defence. I believe him and therefore I think he should and will deliver on defence and he'll have to.
PL: His chickens coming home to roost in a major way, isn't it? In seven weeks time, I am wondering, as we know, a lot can happen in seven weeks. I'd be interested to wrap this up by asking all of your thoughts on what might the Chancellor be hoping will happen in the next seven weeks and what might he be dreading?
ST: I guess one thing is his economic inheritance from the last Chancellor and that the budget last year amid all the chaos, a lot of the fiscal tightening happened towards the end of the forecast periods. It hasn't happened yet, which is obviously quite close to the general election, when the general election would be, so he's got to deal with that end of forecast period. But I think he'll be hoping for a better forecast from the OBR as in most improved forecasts of more growth and thinking, more productivity. Now there's an outside chance you could get a slight upgrade to the growth forecast, the short term, so longer term and potentially slight increase in productivity, which will give them a bit more wiggle room, but not a lot. So I think he is in quite a challenging spot. So I think it is that sort of three balancing act. So on the one hand, can you do some short term relief to both businesses and consumers? Can he do stuff that helps plicate financial markets and the public finances and set out maybe a clearer path for sustainability of the public finances? Also, can he say something around the longer term growth picture? How can he get stronger growth than it has been over the past decade or so? Because financial markets are also looking at: what's the key long-term plan for dealing with the economy and growing at a good rate?
PL: That's a lot to hope for in the next few weeks. Frances, what do you think? What, what's going to be good news for Mr. Healey over the next seven weeks?
FH: The one piece of good news that I'm sure he and let's face it, pretty much everybody will want is a cessation of the Iran conflict. That probably would be his biggest win if that could happen, because that would have an effect on inflation, a positive effect on inflation, and hopefully, obviously, bring down the bank rate in 2027. But obviously that's not in his gift. We will have to wait and see. I would just say on the point of productivity, productivity has been more positive over the first half of this year. So, there is a potential, the OBR might take that into consideration. It's always difficult to know for sure. So, something like that could materialise and help him. Obviously what he's hoping is that there isn't going to be any more geopolitical conflict, I suspect. Anything else that comes out, whether, as you say, the Falklands thing, it's probably a bit of a flash in the pan, but you could see those sorts of things causing some issues for him.
PL: Yes. Any high profile ruckus wouldn't be good. David, what's your thinking?
DW: I think he'll be praying for world peace. Like, like most people. World peace will be a great thing. But I hope he doesn't listen too much to the treasury group, in the way that Rachel Reeves did. That made him make the mistake politically of scrapping the Winter fuel payments, which led to the massive downfall in popularity of that government in its early days. So he can't afford to make a mistake like that politically. But other than that, I guess he's hoping for some kind of cessation of violence in the Middle East, good forecasts from the OBR and possibly as it's autumn that the magic money tree might start dropping a few leaves.
PL: And as Frances says that the Falklands doesn't blow up into a ‘now’ conflict. Thank you all very much indeed. Food for Thought.
FH: Thank you.
ST: Thank you.
PL: If you're an ICAEW member, remember to click through to the ICAEW site to log your listen to this podcast as CPD before it slips your mind. I am happy to say thousands of you enjoyed our recent 'What If' podcast, where we imagine the implications for business of a Russian incursion into Poland. So next time we're bringing you another one. What if one of your C-Suite falls victim to identity theft? How does it happen? What could it mean for your business? And most importantly of all, what do you do about it? Don't miss it. Thanks for being with us.
