≡ Menu

Returns aren’t average

When I began planning my financial future, I became obsessed with nailing a realistic rate of return. All of the investment calculators required one.

Plus, everything else flowed from that number – such as how much I needed to save, and how long it would be before I could declare financial independence.

It seemed important. Because if I highballed the number then I was telling myself a fairy story, wasn’t I?

Eventually I read enough fusty old PDFs and insomnia-curing books to convince myself I had an answer.

The average inflation-adjusted rate of return for a portfolio of global equites was about 5%. More than 100 years of returns data said so.

You could dig up a similar number for bonds, too, and all the rest.

Do the maths, and hey presto! One time-tested, personalised rate of return.

Data mining

Then you get down to the hard work. Years of hacking away at the FI coalface. Celebrating when you hit a seam of double-digit returns. Face blackened when you’re scorched by a fireball of negative numbers.

But it’s the damnedest thing. That oh-so-achievable looking positive average return hardly ever turns up. Because investment returns are rarely average:

Data from JST Macrohistory 1, The Big Bang 2, Before the Cult of Equity 3, A Century of UK Economic Trends 4, St. Petersburg Stock Exchange Project 5, World Financial Markets 6, and MSCI. February 2026.

No matter how many annual return charts I see, I never get used to how nuts the variance is. Yet this carnival of volatility is a far better portrayal of the actual investment experience.

In the chart above, the blue line is the average annualised return for World equities 1900 to 2025. It currently stands at 5.6%. (All returns in this post are inflation-adjusted, GBP total returns).

However you can count on your fingers the number of annual returns that remotely resembled that figure. Across 126 years!

Which is fine and dandy when returns come in over the blue line: “Yay, I’m above average – maybe I’ll get to retire early?”

But it’s super-bleak whenever the bad years roll in. Then, everyone wonders if they’ve been sold a pup.

Optimism biased

Luckily a string of defeats doesn’t happen very often, as you can see from the chart. We haven’t experienced more than a single negative year in a row since the Dotcom Bust of 2000 to 2002.

Since then though, interest in DIY investing has exploded. I can only imagine the fear and loathing that’ll reverberate through the community if (when…) we suffer a sequence more like the 2000s, the 1970s, or the 1930s.

There’s no cure for human nature I suppose. But the Pollyanna problem has been on my mind lately, given nerve-janglingly extreme US market valuations.

Gold fingered

The wide variation of returns we see with equities holds too for every other asset class you can plausibly take refuge in. Such as gold…

Data from The London Bullion Market Association. February 2026.

Gold won the past decade. It’s also having a great year (so far).

Tempted? Beware that gold annual returns are certifiably insane.

The last 20 years have been amazing. But the 20 years between 1980 and the year 2000? Not so much.

Necessary historical footnote: The GBP gold price before 1975 was mostly either fixed or distorted by the impact of government regulation. Find out more in our deep dive into gold.

Show me the money

Data from JST Macrohistory 7, British Government Securities Database 8, and Millennium of Macroeconomic Data for the UK, 9. February 2026.

Cash operates in a narrower range, sure. Yet inflation and abrupt interest rate swings can send returns haywire.

I still wonder why everyone piled into money market funds when interest rates spiked in 2022. Had they forgotten the enormous cash bear market that raged from 2009?

Money markets lost over 27% from 2009 to 2023. Every year bar one was a loser. But it just didn’t feel like it because we don’t keep it real. (By which I mean inflation-adjusted!)

His skid mark materials

AQR 10, Summerhaven 11, and BCOM TR. February 2026.

Commodities are even scarier than equities. Some 42% of years are negative versus just 30% for World equities. You need a cast iron stomach to withstand that level of volatility.

But also look at the number of years commodities returned over 20% – and even 40% – in comparison to equities.

The penny finally drops when you discover that bonza commodities years often occur when equities are in the toilet.

Commodities’ average return looks pretty good, too: 4.3% annualised. Then again, this asset class is the epitome of ‘anything can happen and it probably will’.

Gilt complex

Data from JST Macrohistory 12, and FTSE Russell. February 2026.

Lastly, if not leastly, there’s government bonds – whose approval rating sank to Trumpian levels when gilts dished out their second-worst annual return on record in 2022.

All Stocks gilts (as featured in most UK government bond funds and ETFs) aren’t really much easier on the nerves than equities. Even worse, their average return is a miserable 0.76%.

The secret though is not to view bonds on their own. Bonds don’t make any sense in isolation. The magic happens when you throw them into a pot with other assets.

Kinda like how most people don’t eat raw chillies, but there’s widespread agreement that they add something to curries.

Enter the Pot-folio

Don’t even think about stealing my amazing new Pot-folioTM idea. I’ve trademarked the bejesus out of it. (What’s that? “Just stick to the charts, mate…?”)

The improvement wrought by sufficient diversification isn’t totally obvious in chart form. The down rods are definitely fewer and stumpier, though.

However looking at the raw numbers highlights the difference more clearly:

World equities The Pot-folio
Annualised return5.6%5%
Deepest drawdown-51.8%-36.5%
Longest drawdown13 years10 years
% years -10% or worse15%9%
Volatility16.2%11.6%
Ulcer Index18.49.8
Ulcer Performance Index0.280.47

In exchange for giving up a little return, you get fewer and less severe down years. That means:

  • Shallower drawdowns
  • Shorter drawdowns
  • Less volatility
  • Better risk-adjusted performance

The Ulcer Index is a measure of downside pain that translates drawdown depth and length into a single metric. A lower number is better.

Portfolio Charts introduced me to the Ulcer Index as devised by Peter Martin.

The Ulcer Performance Index is a risk-adjusted performance ratio that divides the excess annualised return by the Ulcer Index number. Here higher is better.

You say portfolio, I say Pot-folio, you say “Go do one”

I haven’t spent time optimising the Pot-folio. It’s just an equity-tilted variant of an All-Weather portfolio.

Essentially, you maintain positions in assets that when combined can cope with most people’s shopping list of worries:

  • Growth – equities
  • Inflation – commodities, index-linked gilts
  • Recession / panic – government bonds, gold, cash
  • Stability / liquidity – cash

However, as much as everyone buys into the concept of diversification, it’s fair to say investors spend more time thinking about how to satisfy their immediate desires. Such as making bank as quickly as possible, if not quicker. Right up to the point that the risk chickens come home to roost – and crap all over the place.

So if you’re nervous about AI bubbles or whatnot, be bolder with your diversification. By which I mean, consider investing in asset classes that look painful when viewed in a vacuum, but that can be blended together to smooth out your ride.

This way you can aspire to be a bit more average most years – and if that means the difference between you staying invested for the long run and bailing out at some market bottom, it’ll make all the difference.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Jordà O, Knoll K, Kuvshinov D, Schularick M, Taylor AM. 2019. “The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1225-1298.[]
  2. Kuvshinov D, Zimmermann K. 2021. “The
    Big Bang: Stock Market Capitalization in the Long Run.” Journal of Financial Economics,
    Forthcoming.[]
  3. Campbell G, Grossman R, Turner JD. 2021. “Before the cult of equity: the British stock market, 1829–1929.” European Review of Economic History. 25. 10.1093/ereh/heab003.[]
  4. Chadha J, Rincon-Aznar A, Srinivasan S, Thomas R. “A Century of UK Economic Trends.” ESCoE, NIESR and Bank of England.[]
  5. Radchenko P. “St. Petersburg Stock Exchange Project.” Yale School of Management, International Center for Finance.[]
  6. Moore L. “World Financial Markets, 1900–25.” Working paper.[]
  7. Jordà O, Knoll K, Kuvshinov D, Schularick M, Taylor AM. 2019. “The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1225-1298.[]
  8. Cairns A, Wilkie D, ESCoE Historical Data Repository. “Heriot-Watt / Institute and Faculty of Actuaries / ESCoE British Government Securities Database.” ESCoE.[]
  9. Thomas R, Dimsdale N. 2017. “A Millennium of Macroeconomic Data for the UK.” Bank of England.[]
  10. Levine, Ooi, Richardson, Sasseville. 2018. “Commodities for the Long Run.” FAJ.[]
  11. Bhardwaj, Janardanan G, Rajkumar, Geert Rouwenhorst K. 2020. “The First Commodity Futures Index of 1933.” Journal of Commodity Markets. 2020.[]
  12. Jordà O, Knoll K, Kuvshinov D, Schularick M, Taylor AM. 2019. “The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1225-1298.[]
{ 22 comments }

Weekend reading: Hargreaves Lansdown not out

Weekend reading: Hargreaves Lansdown not out post image

What caught my eye this week.

A flood of articles this week highlighted how people are abandoning Hargreaves Lansdown in favour of other – presumably cheaper – platforms.

I wasn’t surprised to hear it, going by comments from readers on our latest broker update and the broker comparison table.

Hargreaves’ fee rejig – effective from 1 March – was the firm’s first for donkey’s years. The headline platform charge was cut, and there are lower trading costs for ETFs, shares, investment trusts, and gilts. But total fee caps will rise, along with trading costs for funds.

Whether this leaves Hargreaves cheaper or dearer for you depends on how you invest.

Yes, I said it: cheaper! Potentially.

Virtually all Monevator readers who’ve commented have said they’ll see their costs rise. But calculations show Hargreaves Lansdown will be cheaper for me if I continue to trade as I have in the past.

That’s because I invest (too) actively, of course.

Most Monevator readers are much more passively invested – and they were cannily taking advantage of quirks in Hargreaves’ old fee structure to keep their costs low.

See how they run

The big articles covering the alleged exodus – from The Financial Times, The Telegraph, and The Daily Mail – are paywalled.

But this extract from the FT gives the gist:

Investment site AJ Bell said it had seen “a big spike in applications from HL customers” following the adjustment. In a typical month, AJ Bell receives inbound transfers in the high hundreds of millions of pounds from other platforms and on a normal day 10-15 per cent of this would be from HL. However, on the day after HL’s announcement this jumped to 50 per cent.

Another platform, IG, said that as of Wednesday last week, inbound transfer requests from HL had reached 94 per cent of 2025’s total volume. The mean transfer value rose from £95,000 last year to £280,000 in the same period since the fee changes, it added.

Freetrade said its average daily transfer in requests had increased threefold since January 22, compared with the average total in all of December 2025, with Hargreaves one of the leading sources.

For its part, Hargreaves said its new fees would either be the same or lower for eight out of ten customers.

The company also told the FT that almost half the transfer requests it’s seen since it revealed the new fees were from the 400,000 or so customers set to pay more from March.

Flights of fancy

I imagine all these stories were driven by data being doled out by Hargreaves Lansdown’s rivals.

Nothing like kicking a competitor when they’re down!

However I wonder if these other platforms will regret their schadenfreude someday?

I’m not here to bat for Hargreaves Lansdown – or its new-ish private equity owners. At the last count Hargreaves was host to over £150bn in assets under administration. The Bristol-based behemoth can take care of itself.

But it is interesting – and to a great extent heartening – to see how footloose at least some of its millions of customers can be.

Go back 20 years and you would have assumed the bulk of its vast pool of client money was effectively locked up. Not through any de facto gating, but through inertia, the hassle factor, and very little regulatory drive to make it easier for customers to transfer elsewhere.

For a significant cohort of customers today, though, that’s clearly not the case.

We’re ready and able to move our money in order to keep more of it for ourselves. So platforms cannot get too greedy.

Hence I wonder whether the platforms now so happy to be chosen by Hargreaves Lansdown’s fleeing customers will just be the evacuation zones of tomorrow.

No enshittification, Sherlock

Either way, our willingness to move our money should be a good defence against what’s now called enshittification – essentially when a dominant supplier first crushes the competition with a superior offering, but once secure jacks up fees and degrades its service to boost its profits.

There are just too many competing investing platforms around to allow this currently. And more are being launched each year.

Indeed if the AI-fear-driven sell-off in wealth management firms this week is any guide, the competitive pressures will only grow.

Bad news if you’re a private equity firm that bought a giant platform for cashflow, maybe…

…but good news for small and nimble private investors like us!

Wondering whether you should switch?

  • Our recent platform update post highlighted the better offerings
  • See our broker table for a summary of all the contenders

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 48 comments }
Photo of two carefree children without any control

Kids are a pain. One minute you’re funding their entire lifestyle. The next minute they’re off to university or buying their first flat – and you’re still funding their entire lifestyle.

But perhaps you want to do even more for the young people in your life?

Maybe you want to help give your little ones (another) leg up?

Maybe your genes are forcing your hand!

You’re not alone. Almost £10bn has been socked away in Junior ISAs (JISAs) for the benefit of children, for example, according to AJ Bell.

That’s equivalent to 1.25 million JISA accounts – or roughly one for every ten kids in Britain. Although in reality some lucky children will have multiple accounts, like mine.

Do my kids appreciate this foresight and generosity? Well one thinks everything costs £20 and the other prefers eating coins to using them. So we aren’t quite there yet.

And this hints at the crux of the issue – children are, well, children. They don’t think in the same way as hardbitten Monevator-reading adults.

Which is charming enough when you’re on a trip to Disneyland and they still think Mickey Mouse is real.

But it could be somewhat less heartwarming if they blow half the money you saved for them on a bender in Ibiza the day they turn 18.

We’re spoilt for choice when investing for kids

The first thing to say is that parents have many options when saving for their children.

Easy does it: standard cash and investing accounts

Obviously you can put cash straight into a child’s bank account. Depending on their age and the bank in question, you can then control withdrawals. 1

Children can also hold shares and funds via designated or bare trust accounts.

In all these cases, by the time the child turns 18 they typically gain control and with it the ability to withdraw all of the cash and shares.

But just shoving money into a standard account like this isn’t ideal, because once a child earns over £100 in interest from parental gifts, their interest is taxed as if it was earned by the parent. The same thing applies if you buy shares for them, too.

Not surprising really, given what an easy tax-dodge little Junior would otherwise be.

If it’s not your child, though – perhaps a grandchild – crack on!

I’m sure some of you have spotted some potential loopholes in these rules. But the spicy boundary between tax avoidance, mitigation, and evasion isn’t on my agenda today.

The tax-efficient route: JISAs, JSIPPs, and Premium Bonds

Want your kids to invest more tax efficiently without the risk of only seeing a parent during whatever visiting hours His Majesty’s Prison Service finds convenient?

Fortunately you have several options.

Junior ISAs

The aforementioned Junior ISA (JISA) is the most common way to save for kids. JISAs enable a child to save or invest up to £9,000 per year shielded from income tax and capital gains tax – so just like an adult’s ISA, only with lower contribution limits.

Junior SIPPs

Alternatively, an option that seems to be growing in popularity are Junior SIPPs (JSIPPs).

A JSIPP lets you get a child’s pension rolling, decades before most of their peers will ever hear the word. A child is allowed contributions of up to £3,600 gross (£2,880 net) per year. A 20-year head start on a pension will certainly turbocharge the compounding process.

Premium Bonds

Finally, you could buy them some Premium Bonds like everyone’s granny used to do. Winnings are tax-free, and so Premium Bonds are one of the easiest ways to put aside tens of thousands in cash for your children in a tax-efficient manner.

Also, unlike with a JISA or JSIPP, if your family wants to use some of the child’s money before they turn 18, Premium Bonds give you that option.

The complicated route: trusts

To retain a degree of control you could consider a discretionary trust.

Trusts enable you to define how the assets should be used, even after the children turn 18. They are often used for large legal settlements, or where relatives pass away leaving six-figure amounts that need careful management.

Beware though that trusts come in various shapes and sizes. The tax rules are complicated, and you will need expert advice to get the most out of them. If you’re a typical saver who just wants to save a few thousand pounds for a child – or even a few tens of thousands – then the complexity and cost will probably outweigh the benefits.

The hold-it-yourself route

Keeping hold of the cash or assets yourself – rather than giving it to the kids – is the simplest option.

But I know it possibly sounds like the stupidest option, too.

Why waste the £9,000 per year tax-free allowance of a JISA? Or spurn the £3,600 per year JSIPP allowance – which could compound for 70 or 80 years to deliver a healthy pension? (Assuming the government in the 22nd Century allows your kids to retire before they’re 100.)

Why indeed?

Well, I think there are some advantages that I’ll get on to in a minute. But first a recap.

Investing for future generations: your options at-a-glance

StrategyAge child gains controlTax benefitsCost of administration
Put cash into a child’s bank account18, though many banks will give partial control earlierIf cash didn’t come from a parent, child can use standard £12,570 Income Tax allowanceNone
Buy shares in a child’s name via a bare trust18 (16 in Scotland)If cash didn’t come from a parent, child can use standard Income Tax and CGT allowancesLow, though few brokers advertise this option. See AJ Bell or Hargreaves Lansdown
Open a Junior ISA (JISA)16, but can’t withdraw until 18Shielded from capital gains and income tax, transforms into an ISALow, see our broker table
Open a Junior SIPP (JSIPP)18, but can’t withdraw until 57Shielded from Capital Gains, Income Tax payable on withdrawal, transforms into a SIPPLow, see our broker table
Buy Premium Bonds for a child16UntaxedNone
Set up a discretionary trustTrust retains controlTrusts are taxable, rules are complicatedSet-up can exceed £1,000. Expect to pay annual management fees
Hold assets in your own nameAdult retains controlNone, unless you use your own ISA allowanceNegligible, assuming you have existing accounts

It’s about psychology, not money

The real issue isn’t tax efficiency though – it’s psychology.

I was fortunate to start university with a few thousand pounds which my grandparents had invested into a cautious investment trust.

I’d also worked part-time since turning 17 and I’d saved some of my earnings there, too.

Moreover even at that age I was enamoured with compounding my money. (Perhaps excessively, but that’s a story for another day.)

So you can imagine the shock I had on seeing my fellow students gleefully burning through the free £500 overdrafts being doled out by the High Street banks.

This difference in our mindsets was driven home when I found myself lending £100 to one friend – a recent graduate from a particularly posh boarding school – who was unable to afford a train ticket home for Christmas. He’d squandered his allowance!

I can only imagine the carnage if everyone had hit Uni with six-figures in savings to burn.

More recently, I was consoling a somewhat glum colleague about his son’s JISA.

Oh, the investments he’d made were doing well. The snag was that his son had recently observed that the JISA balance could buy a brand new BMW i8…

The Ins but not the Outs of JISAs

You can manage a JISA for a child and make any number of astute decisions on their behalf. But the only way the money can leave the JISA is after the child turns 18.

And at that point, in an instant, the child (now adult) has full control.

True, you might have a mature and financially-astute child who continues to manage the pot carefully and industriously.

But then again, you might not.

What if you twig when they’re 16 that getting access to all this money is going to be a disaster? Well, you’re out of luck. It’s going to them whether you like it or not.

If I pointed out that a young person might blow the lot on alcohol and a sports car and find themselves wrapped around a tree at 3am, I might be over-egging the case.

But you cannot expect the average 18-year-old to spend in the way you’d like them to. 

Nor can you tell when they are three, eight or eleven-years-old whether your have a child that’s out of the ordinary in this respect.

Is a pension the answer?

I’m equally sceptical of JSIPPs – although for a different reason.

If we consider the big challenges facing young people today, student loans and high house prices loom large.

Scraping together the deposit on my first home was a goal I’d worked at from the age of 17. It took a lot of hard work and, ahem, frugalism.

And I’m not sure as I was striving away how much I’d have appreciated knowing my grandparents had put money away for me… to access in the year 2065.

I don’t think that I’d have been ungracious!

But given that the start of someone’s financial life is typically when things are toughest, you might be doing a child a disservice by ring-fencing money for some far-off future when they’ll be grey-haired, or maybe not even alive anymore to spend it.

Why I would choose the suboptimal option

Personally, if either parent has space in their own ISA allowances, I would encourage hiving off a segment of that for your children before you open a JISA.

You can pay them lump sums from this allocated money as needed in their future.

By retaining the money in your own accounts, you have full control of it. And you don’t burden your kids with needing to make good decisions when they’ve only just become old enough to legally drink.

Now, you may be gnashing your teeth here. And I too usually prefer financial arguments to psychological ones.

If investing typically results in a higher return than paying down a mortgage, say, then investing is what I’ll prioritise.

But when you’re making money decisions for other people, you need to think broadly.

It’s like how some debt specialists advise people to pay off small quantity debts before high-interest ones. They know that psychologically the person with debt may be more motivated by seeing small debt balances disappear completely – even if financially it’s nonsensical to pay down anything but the debts with the highest interest rates first.

Getting people in debt to keep getting out of it will always beat the strategy they give up on.

Taxes might sting

If you do feel able to allocate some of your ISA allowance to your children, all good.

However what if both parents are already making full use of their ISA allowances?

Well, investing outside of tax wrappers brings with it the potential for dividend tax at up to 39.35% and capital gains tax at up to 24%.

And that’s clearly the main disadvantage of foregoing the JISA or JSIPP route.

There are a few ways you can try to minimise the tax drag:

  • Use your ISAs for your equity holdings and hold your tax-advantaged gilts outside
  • Harvest capital gains in your taxable accounts each year
  • Encouraging relatives to keep money in their own name rather than handing it over to you immediately. (Though this comes with obvious issues, too. And don’t forget inheritance tax!)

There’s no way around it for some parents though – they will inevitably have to choose between going with JISAs and JSIPPs or else paying taxes.

As I say, I’m sceptical JISAs and JSIPPs are the no-brainer many people seem to think. So I’d be prepared to pay some tax to keep control.

But if you specialise in risk quantification and you want to have a stab at telling me whether my kids will be a decent bet by the time they turn 18, let me know in the comments.

Am I a hypocrite?

The observant of you may have noted in the introduction that I mentioned holding multiple JISAs for my children.

And that’s true. You see, I’ve decided it’s reasonable for my children to access modest four-figure sums when they turn 18.

If they choose to blow that money when they get access that’s their prerogative – and potentially a clue as to how I should disburse their remaining money.

I’ve only invested a small amount upfront in these JISAs, and have made some rough projections based on historical data. I’ll top-up the accounts in the future if necessary. 

For example I’ll want to roughly equalise what each child gets, after sequence of returns boosts or depresses their final totals. (This may seem tantamount to communism, but it feels fair to me…)

The rest of the money earmarked for them will sit with us as parents and grandparents. Then when the time is right – perhaps for a house or a car – we’ll be able to support them.

But until then they need never know that this money is even there.

I should stress the kids’ assets will be clearly delineated in my accounting from my own investments and retirement funds. And as I said, I’m an addict for saving for the long-term.

However if this approach would present too tempting a pot for either adult to dip into from time to time, then clearly JISAs or JSIPPs might be a better option.

There will always be risks

Who knows what world our children will inherit as adults?

Should we consider the risk that they start adulthood with a period of unemployment? Or suffering from health issues that prevent them from working?

Under the current rules, having just £16,000 of savings would make them ineligible for means-tested benefits like Universal Credit.

We can debate the politics of that endlessly. My point is even a well-managed portfolio could be soon burned through for very little benefit.

Similarly, what if your child meets a malicious lover who systematically extracts their cash before moving on? You might regret having put a six-figure target on their backs.

I once spoke to a guy at a firm who specialised in inter-generational wealth for ultra high-net-worth families. I asked him what his customers valued that might surprise me?

“Teaching their little [bleeps] how not to piss away the family fortune,” he replied.

Maybe that’s too cynical. The whole point of saving money this way for the future is to help our children – or other young people we dote on – to achieve their dreams.

We can’t protect them from everything. But we can make their path a little easier.

Are you putting money aside for your kids or grandkids? Did your elders do the same for you? Let us know how and why in the comments below!

  1. The rules here can be very complicated. For example Santander’s 123 Mini can be managed by a trustee until the child is 18, but not if the child is 13 or older when the account is opened.[]
{ 34 comments }

Buffer ETFs: a strange tale of loss aversion

Buffer ETFs you say? Sounds interesting, what are they all about? Stock market upside with limited downside? VERY INTERESTING! Tell me more!

Oh, there’s quite a lot of jargon isn’t there? [Flips through brochure.] I see. I see. I like this diagram, here. I see what you did there. [Notices funny smell.]

This article can be read by selected Monevator members. Please see our membership plans and consider joining! Already a member? Sign in here.
{ 8 comments }