≡ Menu
Weekend reading: Wall Street to Reddit – hold my beer post image

What caught my eye this week.

Competition to work for one of the bulge bracket investment banks is always fierce.

Young graduates from the best universities around the world compete for the chance to make millions in the markets.

Indeed, many onlookers – myself included – have lamented this brain drain. Finance takes too many clever people away from science and engineering.

So it’s especially galling that all that striving for academic achievement and going toe-to-toe in grueling interviews wasn’t enough stop bankers at some of these big institutions losing billions of dollars in the past fortnight.

Several investment banks had enabled an obscure family office, Archegos, to leverage up its $10 billion portfolio until it reportedly had more than $50 billion in exposure to just a handful of companies.

Which was a nice little earner, until the music stopped – like it always does.

When share prices began to fall, Archegos needed to stump up more money that it didn’t have to meet its margin calls.

This meant forced selling, and plunging share prices of the companies Archegos held:

Which was a problem for the banks.

You know what they say: when you owe the bank £10,000 you have a problem. When you owe the bank £1 million the bank has a problem.

Well, when you owe the banks tens of billions, everyone has a problem.

A billion here, a billion there

The Archegos SNAFU unwound like the finale of the criminally under-watched movie Margin Call:

According to the Financial Times [search result]:

…before the troubles at the family office burst into public view at the end of the week, representatives from its trading partners Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, UBS and Nomura held a meeting with Archegos to discuss an orderly wind-down of troubled trades.

The banks had each allowed Archegos to take on billions of dollars of exposure to volatile equities through swaps contracts, and Hwang was struggling to deal with margin calls triggered by a plunge in ViacomCBS shares.

An orderly wind-down would minimise the market impact and the hit to their own balance sheets as they worked to sell down stakes in companies that Archegos had amassed through the derivatives instruments.

It is unclear whether an understanding was reached but several sources said it was quickly clear that some banks had begun selling to stem their own losses. People familiar with the trading said Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley both appeared to have unloaded small batches of shares in the market after the meeting.

“It was like a game of chicken,” one person said.

By Friday morning, any hopes of co-ordination had been snuffed out and the floodgates opened when Goldman began pitching global investors on billions of dollars of Archegos-linked stocks.

Morgan Stanley joined hours later, and the two sold roughly $19bn in big block trades that day alone, according to the people.

That was probably painful for those US banks, but not as much as for (European) Credit Suisse and (Japanese) Nomura.

The two non-US banks dragged their feet. Perhaps they are less familiar with the ruthlessness of Wall Street banks than are, um, Wall Street bankers.

Nomura says it may have lost as much as $2bn on the trades. Credit Suisse has reportedly lost between $3 billion and $4 billion.

And people said the Reddit traders had issues…

Marginalia

Some readers – even my co-blogger – often question how I can be so arrogant as to invest actively when I’m up against the smartest financial minds on the planet.

And it’s true, we all know the evidence shows that most active investors would be better off as passive investors.

But I’ve seen very little over the years to suggest this doesn’t equally apply to The Smartest Financial Minds On The Planet.

Perhaps I’ll just point them towards this article in the future.

As for the investment bank recruiters, maybe they should ask to see an applicant’s Netflix viewing record alongside their C.V.?

Viewing Margin Call should be mandatory.

Then again, the banks probably would have facilitated the trades anyway.

As Bloomberg notes:

…global banks embraced [Archegos founder Bill Hwang] as a lucrative customer, despite a record of insider trading and attempted market manipulation that drove him out of the hedge fund business a decade ago.

Sure, why not enable tens of billions of dollars in leveraged exposure with that guy? Bankers gotta bank!

And to think I struggled to get a mortgage.

p.s. I’m out with Weekend Reading early this week so I can spend a few days in various local gardens. Have a great Easter weekend everyone!

[continue reading…]

{ 53 comments }

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q1 2021

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q1 2021 post image

A year ago, give or take, Covid-19 began to spread across the world like an ink stain. Twelve months of lockdown and one frightening stock market crash later and the Slow & Steady passive portfolio is up 21% in the last year.

Surely there’s been a mistake?

Although… if the end-of-the-world is not nigh then why is our model portfolio not up 2000% like those crazy non-fungible tokens and digitised fart certificates?

It’s because reality is simultaneously more dull yet at the same time unbelievable than any clickbait writer can get away with.

The extent to which our perceptions are built on shifting sands becomes clear when you compare the Slow and Steady’s annualised return numbers for 2021 with 2020.

Here’s this quarter’s numbers in spangly EmperorsNewClothes-o-vision:

The Slow & Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. It was set up at the start of 2011 with £3,000. An extra £985 is invested every quarter into a diversified set of index funds, tilted towards equities. You can read the origin story and find all the previous passive portfolio posts tucked away in the Monevator vaults.

Let’s compare this quarter’s mostly healthy annualised returns against the same figures twelve months ago, after the markets checked into A&E:

Asset class Annualised return Q1 2020 (%) Annualised return Q1 2021 (%)
Emerging Markets 3.72 8.68
Global Property 1.8 6.63
Dev World ex-UK 7.52 13.84
UK Equities 3.46 6.71
Global Small Cap 2.89 14.32
UK Government Bonds 6.38 -0.14
Global Index Linked Bonds 7.79 17.84

After enduring only one bad crash in a decade, most of the model portfolio’s assets in Q1 2020 were barely beating inflation. Time to get out the service revolver!

A year on though and I look like a genius. Quick, launch my newsletter!

Global Small Caps are returning near 15% annualised – even though people keep pronouncing small caps ‘dead’.

Developed World ex-UK is also not far off 15% annualised. Don’t mind if I do.

(Let’s gloss over ‘in-UK’ for now. I’m sure this ‘Global Britain’ business will come good eventually.)

And yes, conventional UK government bonds have been beasted over the past four quarters.

But remember – the same bonds were our only solace a year ago.

Hopes and fears

It’s astounding how quickly the narrative changes after a lurch in the numbers.

An asset class turns briefly red and everybody’s retelling 1970s-inflation horror stories like Freddy Krueger is rising from the grave.

In the media, there’s a simple maxim that governs content strategy: Hopes and fears.

Just lace every piece published with human catnip along these lines:

1. Our dreams of making it big

For example:

  • Get rich with Abyssinian Crypto-SPAC trading cards.
  • Grate cheese with your abs in six months by only drinking beer.
  • Five techniques to get your favourite bag of bones into bed.

2. Our darkest fears and insecurities

For example:

  • They’re coming to get you.
  • They’ll take away everything you’ve ever achieved.
  • You’re missing out on this amazing new trend and everyone pities you for it.

The former tactic appeals to our love of lotteries. Much as we know it probably won’t work, we find it hard to resist gambling on a big payoff – especially when we’re young and haven’t got much to lose.

The latter line of attack taps into the insecurities of those who are satisfied with the status quo: “Now I’ve got it made, I just need to keep my eyes open for anything that’ll rob me of my hard-won status.”

The less likely the story, the more compelling it is:

“If this is BS then surely they couldn’t publish it?”

Or,

“Can someone please debunk this for me and then I can forget about it.”

Thus every mild perturbation in the market gets spun into the foreshocks of the next crisis by a media hungry for clicks.

Be prepared

It’s hard not to be knocked off course in this environment. But Kipling must have had passive investors in mind when he counselled:

“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs…”

Remember that verse next time your grip on sanity is being loosened by internet hype.

We have more to fear from rampant speculation than we do rampant inflation.

New transactions

Every quarter we slingshot £985 at the global market Goliath. Our chips are split between seven funds according to our predetermined asset allocation.

We rebalance using Larry Swedroe’s 5/25 rule. That hasn’t been activated this quarter, so these are our trades:

UK equity

Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust – OCF 0.06%

Fund identifier: GB00B3X7QG63

New purchase: £49.25

Buy 0.235 units @ £209.31

Target allocation: 5%

Developed world ex-UK equities

Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-UK Equity Index Fund – OCF 0.14%

Fund identifier: GB00B59G4Q73

New purchase: £364.45

Buy 0.781 units @ £466.58

Target allocation: 37%

Global small cap equities

Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund – OCF 0.29%

Fund identifier: IE00B3X1NT05

New purchase: £49.25

Buy 0.129 units @ £380.42

Target allocation: 5%

Emerging market equities

iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.19%

Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £78.80

Buy 40.766 units @ £1.93

Target allocation: 8%

Global property

iShares Global Property Securities Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.17%

Fund identifier: GB00B5BFJG71

New purchase: £49.25

Buy 28.832 units @ £2.16

Target allocation: 5%

UK gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.12%

Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

New purchase: £305.35

Buy 1.702 units @ £179.44

Target allocation: 31%

Global inflation-linked bonds

Royal London Short Duration Global Index-Linked Fund – OCF 0.27%

Fund identifier: GB00BD050F05

New purchase: £88.65

Buy 80.445 units @ £1.1

Target allocation: 9%

New investment = £985

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.35% per annum.

This model portfolio is notionally held with Fidelity. Take a look at our online broker table for cheaper platform options if you use a different mix of funds. Consider a flat-fee broker if your ISA portfolio is worth substantially more than £25,000.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.15%

If all this seems too much like hard work then you can buy a diversified portfolio using an all-in-one fund such as Vanguard’s LifeStrategy series.

Interested in tracking your own portfolio or using the Slow & Steady investment tracking spreadsheet? This piece on portfolio tracking shows you how.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 23 comments }

Weekend reading: Could you write for Monevator?

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

I was delighted to welcome a first post from blogger Finumus to Team Monevator this week. What a coup!

I’m hoping for many great posts from Finumus in the months (dare I say years) ahead. Trademark hot takes from the eyes of a seasoned operator.

That, however, is the rub. Like all of us around here, Finumus is no newbie. Everybody writing for Monevator has to some degree already won the game.

The Accumulator declared himself financial independent six months ago.

I’m the same, the way most readers measure it. (I’ve my own perspective on things so… not quite yet. But nearly!)

Lars Kroijer is a former hedge fund manager. Let’s just say he didn’t lose it all in Vegas.

The Greybeard and The Details Man – should we ever see them again – are notoriously in de-accumulation mode.

As for Finumus, well, when you make £1 million on a single stock you’re presumably not pinning your hopes on the State Pension.

The point is myself, TA, and our other semi-regulars are no longer hard-scrabbling up the slopes. Our snowballs have been rolling for years.

It could be you

This means we’re vaguely looking for a new, regular contributor. Possibly even two.

Are you a Monevator fan who can write a witty-ish and informative article every couple of weeks or so?

Are you pursuing financial freedom? Will you never miss a deadline?

Do people say you’re funny, in a good way?

Then we would like to hear from you.

As a potential contributor to the site, it would be ideal if:

(1) You’re nearer the start of your financial journey. We don’t want Monevator to lose touch as we retire to our superyachts (/dinghies).

(2) You’re a maven for personal finance. You’re shuffling cash around the best savings accounts, amassing huge tallies of credit card points – all that. It’s a blind spot for Monevator, and I’d love to correct it.

(3) You’re not a man. I welcome approaches from all genders and I certainly won’t be selecting on this criteria. But Monevator hasn’t got an all-male writing lineup by choice, so at the least please don’t let that dissuade you if you’re not.

(4) You’re very familiar with our style and content. A regular reader!

That’s ideally, not a list of must-haves. And anyway, for a variety of reasons many excellent would-be contributors won’t prove right for us. So please don’t take any rejection to heart.

I get half-a-dozen firms a day asking to submit guest articles (or asking what we charge for paid posts). Sorry, we’re not looking for promotional stuff. We want a fresh independent voice to bring value to our readers.

If this sounds appealing then please contact me via this form with a short explanation of what you’re about – preferably with some links to your previous work – and we can take it from there.

Have a great weekend!

[continue reading…]

{ 57 comments }

The secrets of the ISA millionaires

Graphic of some UK currency plus text stating: how to make up a million

This post on the cult of the ISA millionaires is from our newest contributor, Finumus! Look forward to more unmistakable articles in the months ahead from our latest star signing.

Once again ISA season is upon us – it’s a use-it-or-lose-it allowance with a sell-by date of 5 April – and so all the platforms are trying to attract inflows.

This means a stream of puff pieces about how to join the ranks of the ISA millionaires.

All these articles are in pretty much the same style. The author finds some clients who have more than one million pounds in their ISA – with that one platform – and then asks them about:

  1. How long they’ve been investing
  2. How much they saved
  3. What they’re invested in

The writer will then make some blasé assumptions about savings and returns, in order to persuade readers that a £1m ISA is within the reach of an ordinary investor.

They would say that though, wouldn’t they?

Leaving aside that it might be a bad idea to draw attention to these ISA oligarchs (hands up if you want an ISA Lifetime Allowance?), there’s a lot wrong with this kind of article.

Because aside from time, they don’t mention the real reasons people achieve ISA millionaire-dom: luck, poor risk management, and survivorship bias.

Luck

I don’t mean the picking-the-right stocks sort of luck. I mean the ‘having enough disposable income to save tens of thousands of pounds every year’ sort of luck.

If you’re going to max out your ISA contributions, you’re going to need £20,000 of post-tax excess income.

That’s a lot. You’ve probably got to be approaching a six-figure pre-tax income.

Of course, you’ve achieved that because of all your own hard work, right? Not because you were born into the right sort of family, went to the right sort of school, scraped into a posh university, and then got recruited on the fast-track to upper management?

No, all your own hard work. Luck has got nothing to do with it.

ISA millionaires do need to get lucky picking assets or stocks, too.

  • Started in 1999 and prone to a bit of home bias? You’ve probably not made a million in the FTSE 100.
  • Started a couple of years ago and went all-in on the Scottish Mortgage Trust (Ticker: SMT). That is to say: you made a big bet on Tesla? You’re probably well on your way.

So, one way to get there is to take an inappropriate amount of risk. Just put all of your £20,000 of savings into your ISA, buy a 50-bagger, and you’re done.

Which brings us to….

Poor risk management

There’s a famous and often-quoted study by Fidelity, which supposedly found that the best-performing investment accounts were those whose owners had either:

  1. Forgotten they had the account
  2. Died

Now as far as I know it’s apocryphal – there was no such study. But nonetheless the point is well-made.

What do these people have in common? Sure, they don’t over-trade. But also they exercise no risk management.

Let’s say you invest your whole twenty-grand into the (imaginary) Finumatic Inc. It’s a SPAC1 that’s buying an electric-spaceship-crypto-mining-NFT start-up.

Now of course this thing can go up 50-fold, which is exactly what you want if you’re to join the ranks of the ISA millionaires.

But it’s not going to do it all in one day. And while it’s going up, it’s becoming a bigger-and-bigger fraction of your wealth, asymptotically approaching 100%.

Is this exciting?

Yes.

Is this sensible?

No.

The sensible thing is to sell some on the way up, and then diversify into less exciting assets.

The dangerous thing is to just cling on with ‘diamond-hands’ and not sleep very well at night.

But of course, some people will do just that – or forget they have an account – and some of these dodgy stocks will actually go up and stay up.

(This, incidentally, is why the ‘if your great-grandad had bought $100 of Berkshire Hathaway stock you’d be a billionaire’ trope is also ridiculous. A relative would have sold some along the way.)

There’s another indicator that these people are poor risk managers, which is that they leave all their money with Hargreaves Lansdown or whomever.

Now, I’ve nothing against Hargreaves Lansdown (apart from the obvious) but the FSCS scheme for compensating investors in the event of a platform failure only covers the first £85,000 of your money.

At best, these all-in clients are being naive about how robust the so-called ‘segregation’ of client assets is when the shit-hits-the-fan.

More likely, they haven’t even thought about the worst kinds of failure.

(Either that, or they’ve got several million squirreled away across multiple platforms. But certainly not all of them).

Survivorship bias

If you’re a big DIY investment platform, you have millions of clients.

Some of them behave sensibly. Some of them behave recklessly.

Most of the reckless ones won’t get rich, but a few will become ISA millionaires! Just by chance!

Okay, they probably don’t review the lucky randoms for these articles. Still, if you take a large enough sample, and then you only talk to and about the ones who got lucky, it does give the appearance that ISA millionaire-dom is within reach of the regular punter.

When really, it’s not.

The real secret of the ISA millionaires

Source: xkcd

  1. Special Purpose Acquisition Company. Also known as a blank cheque with big fees attached. []
{ 52 comments }