≡ Menu

The hosepipe ban approach to making big savings

Photo of a man standing at the edge of cave under a water fall

Every year seems weird these days. Maybe it’s all down to the coming singularity.

Certainly 2022’s quadruple whammy of war, drought, inflation, and plunging equity and bond prices has provided enough contrast to please even a late-stage Picasso.

Crops wither while inflation runs wild!

Energy prices soar while portfolios plummet!

Or maybe it’s just the same story of everything running out: water, money, and investment returns.

I had feared tough times were ahead. For example I put wobbly markets and inflation on the agenda in late 2021, flagged underappreciated quantitative tightening in February, and by March urged potential retirees to check their sums ahead of what seemed a nailed-on bad roll of the sequence-of-returns dice.

And in June I – belatedly – warned of rising mortgage costs, too.

Some readers complained this blog was getting too gloomy about markets and the economy.

But if anything I was too bullish about the former, at least in the short-term.

Don’t forget the British Pound is down 15% against the dollar year-to-date before you reply that your subsequently puffed-up US-dominated global portfolio is doing very well, thank you.

Our money doesn’t buy as many US hamburgers as it so recently did – even before it’s been further withered away by inflation.

We voted to be poorer, too

I’ve also continued to remind readers that we’re still governed by the mendacious nincompoops who brought us the most delusional national vanity project since the Millennium Dome.

Every day, Brexit makes Britain poorer, more indebted, and facing higher inflation than where we’d be had it never happened.

The UK economy is an estimated 5% smaller as a result of Brexit.

Remember that’s a 5% shortfall versus the counterfactual every year.

The Treasury will get about £40bn less in revenues annually as a result. The politically neutral Office for Budgetary Responsibility continues to predict a 4% smaller GDP in the long run.

This gap means either taxes and borrowing will have to rise or services will deteriorate compared to a rational world where people didn’t pin their hopes on liars who promised nonsense on buses.

So far, so broadly predictable to all but Barry Blimp.

But please remember this when you hear talk about tough choices during the recession to come. We made things much worse than they had to be.

If you wanted Brexit for political reasons then fair enough, but spare me the financial fairy stories.

It may annoy some readers – which honestly isn’t my intention – but I will never let Brexiteers off the hook for the project’s economic consequences.

Sucker punched

So all that trumpeted, did I imagine consumer price inflation breaching 22% by early next year?

Not on your Nelly.

Obviously I also didn’t foresee a hot war on the edge of Europe with a nuclear superpower.

In fact I thought inflation would be rolling over by now.

Oops!

I’ve mostly expected this because I believed surging prices were much more a result of the on/off pandemic economy and the resultant supply chain disruptions than the Covid support packages that so many countries’ pundits are now fingering for their own state’s high price problems.

I read a lot of company earnings reports, and many of them talked about these difficulties last year.

Of course massive fiscal support that put money directly into people’s pockets and near-zero interest rates that outstayed their welcome – along with home working proving much more productive than most people anticipated – did stoke the inflationary engine.

But it’s the wild swings in supply, demand, and the ability of economies to meet either – as well as surging gas and oil prices in 2022 – that has sent inflation ablaze.

There are lots of ways to show this, from changes in manufacturing output in various countries over the pandemic to the rise and fall of stay-at-home spending as economies shut then reopened.

But this graph of the cost of getting stuff from China to the US gives at least a taste of just one of myriad supply chain shocks to the global economic system:

Source: Global Trade

It’s not just that an importer might have had to pay ten times as much to bring in a container as they did six months previously.

It’s also the multitude of choices that spiral out from these shocks, that cascade to impact other companies’ supply chains.

A particular component of a car assembly, say, that never got delivered. Or, as I was told about last week, a shortage of cardboard due to the online shopping boom during 2020 that subsequently crimped the production of plasterboard which in turn hit housebuilders.

On. Off. On. On. Off. And so on.

No smoke without fire

Until recently – like, last week – the market seemed to agree this inflation had likely peaked. So it was relaxing its expectations for future rate rises from the systemically critical US Federal Reserve.

But Chairman Jerome Powell appears to have kicked such hopes into the long grass at the Jackson Hole pow-wow. And he administered his painful re-calibration via the groin area, to boot.

Meanwhile UK inflation forecasts seem to be rising every few days, with the latest terrifying forecast for energy bills for an average UK household hitting £7,700 a year in 2023.

Clearly this cannot hold. Many people simply won’t be able to pay. But Government action to do something about it will be yet another intervention with a high price tag.

Debt or taxes – or both – will have to rise to pay to offset at least some of the pain. And with UK government bond yields higher, financing state borrowing is getting much more expensive.

I still believe we should make the most of this energy crisis with a war-footing effort to cut energy use, insulate homes, and ramp-up investment in renewables and nuclear.

Simply subsidizing high energy bills will do nothing about any of that.

Incidentally if even this year’s extreme weather globally hasn’t been a wake-up call for you, then feel free to unsubscribe from Monevator from the comfort of your golf club’s air-conditioned Blimp pen, unless you’re (commendably) open to repeatedly hearing alternative points of view. (Also long known as the truth in this particular case.)

Environmental crisis is the biggest threat to our long-term wealth. I won’t be piping down.

Little savings vs big savings

To return to where we started, let’s conflate the water shortage we’re experiencing now with the predicted money drought to come.

We need to make big savings when it comes to both money and the wet stuff.

Yet most personal finance – including much on Monevator – is of the fix-the-leaks flavour.

For instance, you can:

Most of these things individually won’t move the dial much. If you’ve been asleep at the wheel for a few years then you might make some big savings if you come off a standard variable mortgage rate. But otherwise we’re talking £10 here, £20 there.

However do enough of these and soon you’re saving £500 a month. Every little helps, to borrow someone else’s intellectual property.

Notoriously however, the water companies are apparently not doing enough to fix their leaks.

Britain’s pipes are said to be leaking 2.4 billion litres a day. But the corporate calculation seems to be that redressing this up-front means huge investment for long-term returns that will only inflate some future fat cat CEO’s bonuses, while doing little to keep water in the reservoirs for now.

So instead, it’s a hosepipe ban. And while nobody much likes them, they are said to cut water usage by 10% at a stroke. Big savings indeed.

It got me wondering what would be a similarly drastic response in personal finance terms?

Maybe:

  • Postponing your retirement for a year.
  • Selling your second home…
  • …or downsizing your main residence.
  • Becoming a one-car household.
  • Renting out a spare bedroom.
  • No foreign holidays until inflation abates.
  • Getting a second job.
  • Extreme frugality.

Now we’re talking! These sorts of interventions are the equivalent of turning your water-starved English garden over to weeds. They’re a big deal but you’ll potentially save a fortune.

They can compound, too.

If you sell your second home, maybe it’s easier for your family to get by with one car. Energy use will plummet with just the one property to light and heat. You could spend your weekends on a side hustle instead of doing holiday home repairs, making further big savings. If you find yourself with a huge cash surplus you could buy more equities while they’re cheap, boosting your future wealth.

Both routes to saving are valid. All will be highly personable.

If you’re a wealthy 1%-er with a second home in the countryside where you tend to leave the outdoor swimming pool heated most weekends in summer – yes, I know such people – then with energy bills set to quintuple compared to a few years ago, you know what you need to cut first.

For more modest Monevator readers, trying to combine the commute with an old-fashioned weekly shop at an out-of-town discount grocer might be more the order of business.

Where will you make big savings if you need to?

The point is that if the worst-case scenarios come true – inflation running at 22%, interest rates above 5%, the Bank of England’s predicted 18-month long recession, energy bills that could put a child through college, higher taxes, and worst of all rising unemployment – then now is the time to act.

Remember: the first cut is the cheapest.

You do not want to be taking actions under duress. At the very least, start bolstering your emergency fund if you can.

Monevator has a very economically diverse readership. Our subscriber base ranges from students interested in investing to at least the several dozen multimillionaires that I am aware of.

One reader stated in our comments that not even household energy bills of £20,000 a year would see them return to the office to reduce their own costs.

Meanwhile a young reader asked me recently if I thought they should suspend their pension contributions or instead sell their car and walk one hour to work.

These two individuals face very different choices.

Please keep this in mind before you share any overly disparaging opinions in the comments below.

Onwards and upwards, via a bit of downwards

Yes, things could turn out better than feared.

Indeed even now there are reasons to be cheerful.

Joblessness is very low, for starters.

Higher interest rates haven’t crashed the housing market yet – frustrating for first-time buyers but better for most of us than the alternative, at least short-term.

As far as I can tell we haven’t had a truly hugely significant Covid mutation since 2021’s Omicron.

And while I am very far from a Liz Truss fan, at least she seems vaguely interested in being a politician. I’d prefer a rest from this current crop of political pygmies, but for now I’ll take a change.

Even lower stock and bond prices are great news if you expect to be saving and investing for decades to come. The bond price reset is particularly welcome, given the portfolio buffering potential of higher yields. Albeit forecast returns are still deeply negative in real terms.

Personally I long for a few boring years where nothing much happens and the return of drizzle in the autumn.

But we don’t get to choose the weather – whether that’s economic, political, or atmospheric.

Let’s hope for the best but prepare for the worst accordingly.

Are you making any changes to your saving, spending, work, or retirement in the face of the cost-of-living Ragnarok? Let’s us know in the comments below!

{ 52 comments }

SPIVA: the evidence against active funds

SPIVA: the evidence against active funds post image

The chief attraction of active fund management is the prospect that these investing superstars can beat the market for you. Yet one of the most powerful counters levelled against them is that they mostly fail. How do we know they fail? Enter the S&P Indices Versus Active Funds (SPIVA) study that scores active management vs the market.

The SPIVA research reveals two important pieces of evidence:

  • The vast majority of active funds trail the performance of market benchmarks over ten years.
  • The funds that do outperform are unlikely to maintain their hot streak. 

Let’s consider the key SPIVA findings that are relevant to UK investors.

Active funds outperformed by benchmarks over 10 years

SPIVA Europe year-end 2021 results show that the overwhelming majority of active funds do not beat their market benchmarks

Source: S&P. “SPIVA Europe Scorecard Year-end 2021.” 10-year risk-adjusted returns. GBP funds.

The outcome is overwhelming. 

The majority of active funds fail to win (green wedges) against relevant market benchmarks over a reasonable investing timeframe. 

This means of course that most active funds aren’t beating index funds and ETFs, either. Remember: index trackers seek to match their particular market (described by a benchmark) minus costs. 

Active funds cost more. So they’ll trail index trackers if they don’t leave the market choking in their dust. 

Same old story

The SPIVA study was first published in 2002. It has been updated regularly ever since. And the results are damning every year. 

The only rational conclusion? Backing active funds versus the market these days makes about as much sense as putting your money on a chess grandmaster versus an Artificial Intelligence. 

The prestige still enjoyed by active funds is a similar relic of a bygone age. It persists because we love to back a human with a compelling story. 

I suppose the pie charts do reveal a kernel of truth to the claim that active managers can better uncover opportunities in smaller and less efficient markets. 

But even in UK equity, where a substantial minority of funds outperform, the majority do not. 

Sic transit gloria fund-y

But this is all doomster talk surely? Why can’t we just pick today’s winners and ride them to glory?

Never mind that ‘Past performance does not guarantee future results’ old pony plastered around the documents by some gloomster regulator with EU sympathies.

Why don’t we just own the minority of funds that have already proven they can deliver?

Let’s reality-check that notion with the S&P Persistence Scorecard. This tracks the ability of active fund managers to maintain a winning streak.

% of active funds in top quartile for four consecutive years 

SPIVA study bar chart that shows a tiny percentage of equity funds can maintain their top quartile ranking over 4 years

Source: S&P. “SPIVA Europe Persistence Scorecard Year-end 2021.”

The chart shows that retaining your place in the top 25% is a contest played with more ferocity than Squid Game

After just four years, only a sliver of active equity funds remained near the top of their league table:

  • Europe equity: 2.77%
  • Eurozone equity: 1.45%
  • Global equity: 4.31%
  • Emerging Markets equity: 1.3%
  • US equity: 1.41%
  • UK equity: 3.57%

Hmm. Perhaps the casualty rate is less brutal if you restrict the analysis to funds with a three-year outperformance record?

Can those best funds continue to beat their benchmarks for the next three years?

Not so much…

Outperformance persistence over three consecutive years

Equity sub-asset class Total funds Funds outperforming 2018 Same funds still outperforming 2021
Global 1075 70 6
UK 358 79 37
US 289 27 1
Europe 1030 166 23
Emerging Markets 322 45 0
Eurozone 569 69 10

Source: S&P. “Europe Persistence Scorecard Year-end 2021.” 

Only UK equity has a halfway respectable percentage of its 2018 winners still winning in 2021 – 47%.1

Global equity winners are scythed down to 9%. The US has only 4% of its 2018 market-beaters still standing. The Emerging Markets have none. 

Active fund management sees more reversals of fortune than a Russian Roulette tournament. 

SPIVA criticism

It probably hasn’t escaped your attention that the SPIVA research is undertaken by S&P Dow Jones Indices. 

And S&PDJI earns a large slice of revenue by licensing indices to index tracker firms. 

So of course, it’s in S&P’s interest to demonstrate that active funds are falling short. 

But does that mean the SPIVA study is corrupt? 

No, it’s highly respected within the investment industry and attracts remarkably little criticism. 

One of the reasons the study has survived since 2002 is because S&P has updated its SPIVA methodology and addressed some of its biases. 

There’s an interesting discussion of SPIVA’s potential flaws in the paper Uncovering Investment Management Performance Using SPIVA Data by Shah, Wanovits, and Hatfield. 

While the paper’s authors refine SPIVA’s methodology, they concede it’s directionally correct, concluding:

Regarding the passive active debate, we find that passive funds generally outperform active funds in the long run, any advantages of active funds are wiped out by the fees. Only under a bear market does active funds demonstrate an advantage. It does bring into question the value that active fund management brings to investors. 

If you’re relatively new to investing and would like to know more about the active vs passive debate then start by learning:

The paradox of skill

Active fund managers are not frauds. They are exceptionally talented and hardworking as a group.

Yet most of them do not beat the market consistently after deducting their fees.

The odds – and the competition from all the other exceptionally talented and hardworking managers – are stacked against them.

But why is outperformance so elusive even for the odd winning fund? Professor Jonathan Berk from the Stanford School of Business says:

If investors find a manager who can consistently beat the market, they will flock to invest with this manager. Eventually, the manager will have so much money under management he will not be able to deliver superior performance. Competition between investors drives the managers return down to the return investors could earn by themselves.

A hot manager becomes such a cash magnet that they have too much money to invest.

Their prior success was based on picking a combination of assets that was overlooked by the competition. But the torrent of new money erodes their uniqueness.

Their portfolio ends up looking like everyone else’s. Mediocre performance follows.

The manager falls down the league table and investors redirect their capital to the next shooting star.

Warren Buffett puts the challenge of picking winners more succinctly:

The problem simply is that the great majority of managers who attempt to over-perform will fail. The probability is also very high that the person soliciting your funds will not be the exception who does well.

Low-cost index funds solve the problem. 

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. The slightly higher propensity of UK active funds to beat the market may mostly be because they hold more smaller cap shares than the index, which is dominated by a handful of giant firms like AstraZeneca, HSBC, Unilever, and Shell – The Investor. []
{ 36 comments }

Weekend reading: the office as a 21st century poorhouse

Weekend reading: the office as a 21st century poorhouse post image

What caught my eye this week.

Are your staff still refusing to return to the office for daily time-saving stand-up meetings where you and your pet subordinate make everyone else wait through a 25-minute back-and-forth about who will make a sales call on Thursday?

Would your employees rather start their day with a coffee in the garden than an aneurysm in the rush hour?

Are wild animals nesting beneath the ivy-strewn office football table?

Well fear not! The energy crisis might be intervening in the nick of time to preserve your position in the hierarchy. Not to mention bailing out your landlord’s commercial property empire.

According to CNBC:

High heating bills and the prospect of working in a cold and uncomfortable house this winter might soon push more Brits to go back into the office.

Of the 2,000 people surveyed by price comparison site MoneySuperMarket, 14% (280) plan to spend more time working from the office to reduce home energy bills

This figure increases to almost a quarter (23%) when looking at 18-to-24 year olds.

Running out of money seems more compelling to me than specious stuff about team building and mentorship, which may well be missed in some instances, but hardly beats working in your shorts eating Pringles when you want to.

And some of the latest predictions for energy and general inflation (links below) are truly breathtaking.

We can justifiably say we were ahead of the mainstream in flagging a coming cost-of-living squeeze.

But £5,000-a-year energy bills for the average household? Nobody foresaw that. I imagine some cash-strapped 20-somethings will go back to the office just for the snacks at meetings.

(At least if it’s within walking distance and they don’t have to buy new clothes.)

For now the debate rages on, as per these latest contributions:

  • Why more people are working from home on Fridays – BBC
  • Where is everyone? London’s 3sq km of empty office space – Guardian
  • This is why no-one wants to be a middle manager anymore – Fast Company
  • (Virtually) here to stay – City Journal
  • Remote work is sticking – New York Fed
  • Why millennials don’t have hobbies – The Walrus

I remain fascinated about how this will shake out over the next couple of years.

Your money and your life

Long bank holiday weekends aren’t the blessed relief they once were – at least not for white collar workers no longer ubiquitously shackled to a commute that turns their 9-6 into the 7-7 – but do enjoy yours anyway.

Also, thanks to everyone who answered the call for FIRE-side story candidates.

We saw dozens put their hands up on the website, and so many over email that I haven’t begun to reply. But all were gratefully received.

The first Q&As will go out shortly. With luck one of you will be baring all before October!

[continue reading…]

{ 14 comments }

Pros and cons of being wealthy

The pros and cons of being wealthy – a discussion

You want to be rich. Perhaps very wealthy indeed. Who wouldn’t? Debating the pros and cons of being wealthy seems as one-sided as a boxing match between Warren Buffett and Muhammad Ali.

However I’ve given this some thought – inspired by a strange and unfounded fear I’d be the £195 million winner in the EuroMillions – and there are quite a few bad points.

Don’t get me wrong – it’d be a nice problem to have. If you’ve just searched out ‘the pros and cons of being wealthy’ as a sanity check before accepting a briefcase of cash from the Premium Bonds people, take the money!

You can come back later to tell us how hard it is being rich. But let’s begin with the good points.

The pros of being wealthy

Unless you’re very religious, contrarian, or you’re visiting our planet ahead of the full-scale invasion from Mars, you’ll know how great it is to have money.

The esteemed rap poet Nas sums up the general picture as follows:

Clothes that I buy, Ice that I wear,
Clothes that I try, close your eyes
Picture me rollin, sixes, money foldin
Bitches honies that swollen to riches…

Mr Nas is a bit weak in rhyming the clothes he’s trying with those that he’s buying, but then he doesn’t need to try too hard.

He knows we’ve all dreamed of being rich. He just has to flick that switch.

At the very least, being wealthy gets you:

  • Financial freedom
  • Holidays anywhere
  • A great home
  • Funding for your pastimes and passions
  • Good suits
  • Excellent health care
  • A swimming pool full of beautiful people in their skimpies
  • Gold teeth

Feel free to substitute your own desires. (Personally I’d like an island.)

However as Morgan Housel writes in The Psychology of Money:

“Money’s greatest intrinsic value – and this can’t be overstated – is its ability to give you control over your time.”

Self-determination is at the luxury end of the hierachy of needs. And when you’re very wealthy, within reason you can do what you want, where you want, when you want, and a lot of the time with who you want.

But beware! Just like the baddies level up in a video game moments after you get a new weapon upgrade, so your money problems can mutate and come back stronger when you get rich.

The downsides of being wealthy

When I said this article was about the pros and cons of being wealthy, I meant it. Having a lot of money has drawbacks, especially if you get rich overnight.

Just consider the lottery winner’s curse.

Even making your own money won’t necessarily make you happy. I’ve met a fair few rich people over the years, mainly through work, and I’ve also read widely on the subject. And I feel confident in listing these negatives.

(I’m mostly talking about being really rich here – at least £10 million / $15 million net worth.)

Money (probably) won’t make you happy

Once you’re earning a surprisingly modest amount of the stuff, researchers say making more money doesn’t make you happier. Rich people get depressed, just like the middle classes. True, there’s no evidence that money actually makes you unhappy, but it could distract you from fixing your real problems. That said, more recent research suggests earning more money can make you happier – so who knows? And being poor is definitely hard work. So some money is definitely better than none.

The end of your goals and ambitions

You see this with children born into money, as well as people who built a company up for several decades and sold it too late to start another. When you have the money, what next? The trick seems to be to find a substitute to your old goal of achieving financial security. That’s probably why you can’t walk far in Africa without tripping over a philanthropist.

Being judged unfairly

People are critical of the wealthy, especially in the UK. You might give nearly half your money to HMRC, but you’ll still read that you’re a freeloading leech who doesn’t pay their fair share. In the US, entrepreneurs are celebrated, but newly-rich Brits will find many people waiting for them to fall. I saw it a lot in my old career. A self-made man or woman leaves the room, and someone says “well, he was lucky” or “she’s out of ideas” or even “what a dick”. Not nice, but it happens. Then again I’ve also noticed newly-rich people can be terrible for a year or so, before reverting back to their old selves. So if you only got rich six months ago, perhaps you are being a bit of dick.

Someone is richer than you

Rich people are human, too. Your yacht isn’t as big as the one next door, or you had to buy your furniture, unlike your neighbours who had theirs passed down from the 17th Century. Nobody is the richest person in the world on every measure. How many billions would Buffett give to be young again? And anyway, in an increasingly digital world many of the best things can be enjoyed equally as well by normal people as by billionaires.

Guilt

Money can’t buy the love of your friends and family. “Don’t feel bad about being rich,” they say. But do you believe them? One has a broken boiler, another has a child with special needs. And then there are distant relatives who can’t afford nursing care. Do you help them all? Can you? Should you give all your money away? Where do you draw the line?

Being rich is a big deal

Buy a country house and you need staff. Invest your millions and you need accountants. They might move your money offshore, and now you don’t understand the taxes. Perhaps you’ll go to prison for tax evasion? But you’ve no time to read up, because three different architects are coming over to quote on your summer home. You need to brief the security guy about that. Except he’s getting off with your disinterested wife in the boat shed. You think you’ll be different? So do I. Didn’t they?

Scams and fraudsters

One reason you’ll employ all those professionals is because you’ll need help warding off the crooks attracted to your wealth. Nobody was pretending to be you when you owed the bank money. But now you’ve millions parked away it’s a different story. Let’s hope your financial advisers aren’t swindlers, too.

I love you (and your money)

The big one. Does she really find you fascinating, or is it just your bank balance? Is he really won over by your beauty, wit, and experience, or does he just hope to bleed you dry while banging the French au pair?

Money can be all-consuming

The most surprising thing you’ll read in How To Get Rich by Felix Dennis is when he urges you to stop with money after you make a few million. Beyond that you’re wasting your life.

The incredibly rich founder of Maxim magazine wrote:

“Let me repeat it one more time. Becoming rich does not guarantee happiness. In fact, it is almost certain to impose the opposite condition – if not from the stresses and strains of protecting it, then from the guilt that inevitably accompanies its arrival.”

And he should know.

To conclude with the rapper’s perspective, what I didn’t tell you earlier is that the lyrics were from a song called Hate Me Now, in which Nas laments the ill-feeling his wealth inspires out on the streets.

The bard sums up his frustrations thus:

You wanna hate me then hate me; what can I do
but keep gettin money, funny I was just like you
I had to hustle hard never give up, until I made it
Now y’all sayin that’s a clever nigga, nuttin to play with

Of course, the single was a hit and it made Nas even richer. Just like Dennis’ How to Get Rich book is a bestseller.

Being wealthy has its rewards, but irony – that’s priceless.

Do you think the pros and cons of being wealthy are in balance? Would you rather be rich or just comfortable? Share your thoughts below.

{ 68 comments }