Blog

Competition between retailers seeking to entice customers with early Black Friday deals led to a slowdown in shop price rises during November, according to the British Retail Consortium (BRC).

The trade association for retailers said prices in shops rose by 0.6% last month compared with November 2024. This was down from a 1% rise in October and below the three-month average of 1%.

Black Friday has become one of the most important trading periods for many retailers, starting off the Christmas shopping season and giving shops an early insight into customers’ appetite for spending.

Originally a US phenomenon based around Thanksgiving at the end of November, it now encompasses a much wider period globally, with many retailers offering discounts from the start of the month.

Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the BRC, said: “Black Friday deals began earlier than normal [this year] as competition between retailers hit fever pitch.”

The BRC said discounting was most prevalent in the electricals, fashion, and health and beauty sectors, as retailers attempted to woo cash-strapped shoppers who continue to cut back on discretionary spending.

Recent surveys measuring consumer confidence showed a drop in November, as households have grown increasingly pessimistic about their spending, the labour market and the outlook for the UK economy.

Official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) also revealed that UK retail sales fell 1.1% in October, a sharper drop than expected and the first decline since May.

However, Dickinson said retailers will be hoping consumer confidence rebounds during the vital winter trading period now that uncertainty around the budget is out of the way.

“They will continue doing everything they can to keep prices down and help customers’ money go further this Christmas,” she said.

The BRC also said food prices fell 0.3% month on month in November, after dropping at their sharpest rate in five years in October, at 0.4% month on month. However, on an annual basis, households are still feeling the pinch in their food bills, with prices rising 3% year on year.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

The BRC said inflation “remained stubbornly high” for oils and fats, as well as for meat and fish, as climbing production costs are passed on to customers.

“Retailers will need to keep any price increases as low as possible in the run up to Christmas, in order to entice shoppers to spend,” said Mike Watkins, head of retailer and business insight at market researcher NIQ.

The BRC figures cover the first week of November, making them more up to date than the latest official inflation figures, and will provide some optimism for those hoping for an interest-rate cut before the end of the year.

The rate of consumer price inflation fell for the first time in five months in October to 3.6%, according to the Office for National Statistics, increasing market bets that the Bank of England will cut interest rates from 4% to 3.75% at its next rate-setting meeting on 16 December.

This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: ‘Swiss prosecutors file charges against Credit Suisse and UBS’

Sonja Hutson
Good morning from the Financial Times. Today is Tuesday, December 2nd, and this is your FT News Briefing.

UK pension funds are worried about an AI bubble, and the US and the UK are getting close to a truce in the battle over pharmaceuticals. Plus Credit Suisse and UBS are facing criminal charges from the tuna bond scandal.

I’m Sonja Hutson, and here’s the news you need to start your day.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

UK pension funds are cutting back their exposure to US equities. They’re concerned about an AI bubble, plus the fact that the market has become more concentrated in a small number of tech stocks. Funds that manage more than £200bn in assets told the FT they’ve been shifting to other geographical regions or adding protection against a potential market dip.

The UK’s defined contribution pension sector, where employees build individual retirement savings, is especially sensitive to potential stock market swings. Savers that are 30 years from retirement typically have up to 80 per cent of their assets in global equities, most of them dominated by US Big Tech stocks.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Swiss prosecutors filed criminal charges against Credit Suisse and its owner UBS yesterday. They’re connected to the Mozambique tuna bond scandal. Prosecutors alleged that the bank failed to prevent a suspicious $7mn payment because of, quote, organisational shortcomings. UBS took over Credit Suisse several years after the scandal and the charges raised questions about whether criminal liability gets transferred during a takeover.

Here to talk more about this is the FT’s Mercedes Ruehl. Hi, Mercedes.

Mercedes Ruehl
Hi.

Sonja Hutson
All right, lots to unpack here. Can you first explain what the tuna bond scandal is?

Mercedes Ruehl
So the tuna bond scandal dates back to 2013 when Mozambique, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, borrowed around $2bn to fund maritime security projects and a state tuna fishing fleet.

The problem was that much of this money was actually misused. Bankers, intermediaries and government officials were accused of taking bribes and kickbacks, and the country was ultimately left with like pretty crippling debts and a collapsed development project.

Sonja Hutson
Mercedes, what role do Swiss prosecutors say that Credit Suisse as a company played in this scandal?

Mercedes Ruehl
So Swiss prosecutors have filed charges against Credit Suisse — by extension UBS, which took Credit Suisse over in 2023 — for what they describe as organisational deficiencies. The $7mn payment in this case is one of the payments that flowed through the $2bn borrowing deal Mozambique took out in 2013.

So prosecutors say Credit Suisse failed to implement adequate internal safeguards, basically. In particular, when this suspicious $7mn payment arrived in 2016, the bank through a compliance officer did not file suspicious activity report as required. In the eyes of prosecutors, this qualifies as a failure to prevent money laundering, not just an isolated but systemic shortcomings, and thus Credit Suisse, and now it’s successor UBS, are being charged as corporate entities for the failure to stop illicit flows.

UBS said in its statement that it rejects all of these conclusions by the attorney-general’s office, and they’re going to vigorously defend their position.

Sonja Hutson
So I mentioned earlier that this could set a legal precedent. Tell me more about that.

Mercedes Ruehl
This could be an interesting test case for criminal liability after a merger. A lawyer I spoke to said it might help settle whether a company’s criminal liability survives a merger in Switzerland. So UBS bought Credit Suisse in 2023 and prosecutors are effectively arguing UBS inherits the old bank’s exposure and Swiss courts haven’t actually definitively answered that question before. So this is why it could set an important precedent.

Sonja Hutson
What do you think this case will ultimately mean for UBS and its business?

Mercedes Ruehl
So for UBS, this is kind of another uncomfortable legacy issue from rescuing Credit Suisse. The bank has already been working through quite a long list of old legal cases, from mortgage security settlements in the US to misconduct investigations linked to Credit Suisse’s private banking business.

And this case shows that there are still a lot of unresolved issues from the past, and even though UBS agreed a settlement with Mozambique over Credit Suisse’s involvement in the scandal, that apparently hasn’t drawn a line under this dispute. All of this is happening at a time when UBS is also facing broader regulatory pressure in Switzerland.

So these include ongoing discussions around capital requirements. So while UBS is very profitable, its share price is doing OK, it was only slightly down on the day. These legacy cases aren’t helpful.

Sonja Hutson
Mercedes Ruehl covers Switzerland for the FT. Thanks, Mercedes.

Mercedes Ruehl
You’re welcome.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Sonja Hutson
Richard Hughes, the chair of the UK Office for Budget Responsibility, resigned yesterday. This comes after the UK fiscal watchdog accidentally leaked its analysis of chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Budget before she delivered it last week. That caused sharp movements in bond markets.

Now, this isn’t an isolated incident. An OBR report out yesterday said that the error that led to the leak was also to blame for early access to the Spring Statement in March. It found that the watchdog routinely uploaded its documents before publication time, and the OBR had wrongly assumed that it had configured its website to prevent early access.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

The UK has been in a months-long battle with the pharmaceutical industry and the Trump administration over the amount the NHS is allowed to spend on medicine. The dispute has led to threats by pharmaceutical companies to pull investments in the UK. The Trump administration has said it would impose steep tariffs on drug imports.

Now, it seems like they’ve reached a deal, and I’m joined by the FT’s Chris Smyth to discuss this. Hi, Chris.

Chris Smyth
Hi.

Sonja Hutson
So what has the UK agreed to as part of this deal?

Chris Smyth
Well, effectively the UK has agreed to pay more for medicines. They have agreed a change to a very complicated NHS value for money rules, which effectively means they’re willing to pay 25 per cent more for a new branded medicine.

So this is a big deal. It follows years of complaints from industry about the low prices paid by Britain compared to other countries, which Britain had largely been able to ignore previously because other companies ultimately wanted to sell to Britain and felt they had no choice but to accept the price on offer. But that has changed, of course, with the election of Donald Trump, who has made no secret of his dislike of freeloading Europeans, as he called them, and has threatened all kinds of things if companies continue to sell at lower prices and that has concentrated minds and led to this agreement.

Sonja Hutson
And what does the UK get in return here?

Chris Smyth
Well, it gets two things. The most obvious and immediate thing is it gets an exemption from the 100 per cent tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, which Donald Trump had threatened to impose. So Britain will now be exempt from that. And I guess more broadly what it gets is a sigh of relief from the pharmaceutical industry, which had been pausing, cancelling, reviewing all kinds of investments in Britain and will now have a little bit more confidence about in investing here. And the government will tout that as a big win for the economy and try ultimately to say it will benefit, you know, British patients as well because they will get access to these new medicines.

Sonja Hutson
Chris, how much is this gonna cost the UK?

Chris Smyth
Well that is a subject of hot debate in government. But sources tell me that ultimately this will cost about £3bn a year. Now that’s not all an immediate cost. It will build up to that over time. Exactly how long I think it’s gonna be a matter for debate, but somewhere between three and 10 years.

But ultimately there will be a difficulty here because there isn’t really clarity over who is ultimately going to fund this. There is no increase immediately for the NHS budget to pay for this. But you would imagine when it comes to future negotiations, particularly when we see Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, last week likes using the NHS as a prop. After budgets, there will be a lot of pressure for her to give the NHS even more money to and effectively fund these higher medicines costs.

Sonja Hutson
What impact do you think this deal will ultimately have on the UK drug industry?

Chris Smyth
Well, I think it is fair to say that without this deal, there were some pretty dire warnings coming out from the industry about investment in the UK. Their willingness to work here and support a government strategy, which puts a lot of weight on the life sciences sector as one of the key drivers of its industrial strategy. So I think the fact that the government has been willing to move on this is seen as a big win in the industry and it will give some companies confidence to invest.

But I think there’s a lot more to do to convince them that Britain really is a place that wants to support that industry. But of course if they do that, that comes at a price and that is something that many patients and Labour MPs particularly will not be terribly comfortable with the NHS paying.

Sonja Hutson
Chris Smyth is the FT’s public policy editor. Thanks, Chris.

Chris Smyth
Thank you for having me.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Sonja Hutson
You can read more on all these stories for free when you click the links in our show notes. This has been your daily FT News Briefing. Check back tomorrow for the latest business news.