≡ Menu

Something to lose

A classic old painting of an old man in bed in a garret.

I am currently involved in a couple of financial disputes. This isn’t normal for me and I’ve lost sleep over it.

Several thousand pounds are at stake, most likely. Perhaps sneaking into five-figures. That sounds a lot of money – it is a lot of money – but I asked myself this morning why exactly is it bothering me so much?

Is it the money – or is it something else?

I can afford to lose the claims. It would represent a small hit to my net worth. I say that not to boast (many readers could brag considerably more than me) but for context.

My point is the money shouldn’t matter to the extent its potential loss has me awake at 3am.

Money money money…

I care much more about money now I’ve got some compared to when I had none.

I’m not proud of that but it’s true.

Causation, correlation, or coincidence?

A bit of all three I suspect, and more besides.

As a student and into my early 20s, I only thought about money in the abstract. Like a cliché from central casting, I spent more time flirting with ideas like communism and anarchism.

Obviously it’s easier to eschew personal property when you haven’t got any. Even so, I made no effort to materially level up.

I’d avoided student debt thanks to a grant, a few part-time jobs, and some nascent financial savvy, but after a stint working on at college after graduation I was unemployed for six months.

I told myself I was a writer, but I didn’t write anything. Eventually I realised I’d soon not have the money to cover my rent for a room in a dubiously converted garage in Brixton, and a friend explained how to sign-on.

I went along, felt ashamed, didn’t claim anything, and started applying for jobs.

My first job paid well enough, though nothing like what my degree might have earned. No matter, I soon quit anyway for a 50% pay cut to do something I was excited about. I proceeded to earn mediocre money but have a lot of fun for a decade – and to save a slug of what I did earn.

I dumped my savings into high interest savings accounts. I thought about them maybe once a year.

I won’t go into my not-buying-a-property saga again, except to say that chasing house prices was what first made me pay attention to getting more money as an adult.

But even then, I did so inefficiently.

I didn’t invest (fortunately, as I dodged the dotcom bust) and I did extra freelance work in my spare time rather than leveling up my earning capacity. And then, 15 years or so ago when I was finally earning a reasonable amount relative to my flaky ‘career’ path, I jacked it in to co-found a company that in a couple of years I’d extracted myself from for breakeven1.

My friends recently sold that company for a few million.

Money is a mind virus

This was around the same time I got serious about investing. But I continued to live a double life, like Keanu Reeves’ Mr. Anderson in The Matrix.

Friends saw the same freelancer living his breezy graduate student lifestyle. I continued to favour freedom and fun in my work over a higher income.

But by night I was devouring investing forums, financial books, and company reports – and turning what had been a house deposit into a six-figure investment portfolio.

If someone saw contradictions, I explained my Bohemian investor philosophy to them.

But perhaps I was already changing.

Money had started becoming important to me, or at least something I thought about everyday. It was becoming part of my identity – if only in secret to myself.

Starting a financial blog might have contributed to this shift. I don’t think it was a big factor. My idea of financial independence is the freedom to not think about money, not the strictures of hitting a target to quit work or live off some particular sustainable withdrawal rate. I’ve never been very goal orientated in that respect.

Before I bought my flat, I realized I could probably stop working if I wanted to, and if I was prepared to live well within my means.

But I didn’t want to – though I didn’t much want to spend the money either.

I was much more interested in beating the market. And I think it is precisely tracking my returns and my net worth for the past half a decade that has really made a mark.

My experiments in ultra-active investing – and also the meticulous record keeping involved – has reminded me multiple times an hour exactly what my net worth is, and how it has fluctuated since yesterday or even in the past 20 minutes.

Live that every day for a few years and it must change how you see the world.

Before I mostly only logged into my broker accounts when I’d found a better idea to replace one of my existing ones, and so wanted to trade. There could be months in between. I didn’t track my returns, just my net worth – and only when I remembered to or was bored.

It was like a game, and almost as a side-product I grew wealthier. But eventually, thanks to all the tracking – and the aim of market-beating – my own money became like the all-important high score to beat.

On the house

I’d argue though that until a couple of years ago I still wasn’t taking it all super seriously.

I believe buying my flat (and getting a giant mortgage) is what has really focused my mind on money, in terms of how much I have – and what I now have to lose.

As I’ve long suspected, owning even a new home is a mini-money-pit.

First you incinerate a chunk of your savings with stamp duty and legal fees. Then there are the escalated material demands – a fancy sofa here, a distressed mirror there – and beyond even that owning a home is a kind of Bizarro fruit machine that only spits out bills that need paying, at least until you’ve a few years of price appreciation on the docket. (Something I don’t expect for a while…)

In addition, for me getting a mortgage was partly an experiment to see how it would feel to run what’s effectively a levered portfolio.

It turns out I don’t like the feeling very much.

I’d fully intended keeping my (interest-only) mortgage indefinitely but I can see that thinking may change. I suspect the debt is mildly stressing me out.

Either way the mortgage definitely has me thinking far more often about my net worth and my liabilities.

The mortgage has introduced paths where I can go bankrupt. They’re not high-probability paths, but without any debt they weren’t there before.

Mo money mo problems

So that’s the backdrop that I believe has me losing sleep over contested money that once I would have gunned for but not been overly disgruntled about.

If I wanted to stress out about money, I should have started 20 years ago:

  • Compared to the money that went begging for all the years I had a fun job and wasn’t paid very much, the amount at stake doesn’t matter – yet I didn’t think about money in those days.
  • Compared to what I’ve missed out on by not sticking at that first employer (which was acquired a few years later by Microsoft, and everyone had shares) or my start-up or believe it or not two other on/off employers where I would have eventually had a stake, it doesn’t matter. But I never thought about staying at those places for money, either.
  • Even compared to certain woeful stock picks I’ve made over the years, this money isn’t a huge deal – yet I usually just shake my head and move on when an investment goes wrong. I felt bad in the financial crisis, but I don’t think I lost an hour of sleep. (I had other things to worry about.)
  • Compared to the gains I’ve missed out because I de-risked my portfolio after buying my flat – because I care now about losing what I’ve got, and I want more buffers – it’s again a minor sum. Opportunity costs count!
  • Compared to the amount I’ve chucked away in stamp duty and (likely) house price falls it doesn’t matter much.

And yet it has got to me like none of the above.

I suspect it’s partly a bucketing issue. My mental accounting is going awry, because I feel wronged.

That’s illogical.

I believe there’s probably also something extra going on because one of the disputes involves my flat. There’s no doubt your own home feels more personal to you than even a closely-watched portfolio.

I probably also feel a bit dumb for not spotting one of the issues earlier. But stock picking has revealed my inadequacies many times before, so that’s really no excuse.

Money boxed

Warren Buffett talks about the sins of omission compared to the sins of commission. Buffett means that he regrets not buying multi-bagging Amazon or Google more than he kicks himself for buying shares in a loser.

In conventional investing, the most you can lose is whatever money you put in. But the potential upside you miss when you don’t invest is unlimited.

Something like that is true in life.

In my brain – though evidently not my gut – I know it’s not worth getting stressed out about a few thousand pounds now when I might have been earning six-figures decades ago if money was all-important to me.

Perhaps it’s the same for you, maybe not. We all have missed opportunities, or at least paths we didn’t take.

But I fear I’m also more stressed because I’m getting old and crotchety, and old crotchety people end up caring more about money.

You see it all the time. Is it because we’ve more to lose as we get older? Or is it because there’s less time to make back whatever we lose or never had – a kind of holistic sequence of returns risk?

Is it because young people are so rich in ways we will never be again, whatever we do – and so we can’t bear to lose any compensation for that impoverishment?

Or is it simply what the economists call loss aversion? That the pain of loss is greater than the joy of equivalent gains, and so when you’ve more to lose you’re naturally exposed to more pain?

I’m not sure but I don’t like it.

One reason I bought my flat is because I saw I’d been succumbing to what I call Buffett’s folly – the idea that every purchase today has to be priced in terms of the 30-odd years of compounded returns forgone.

But in the real world you have to live – and spend – in the now, a little, now and then.

Excessively caring about money as you get older sees everything from wealthy but freezing pensioners refuse to put the heating on to One More Year syndrome when you really want to retire to the spectacle of Californian tech titans buying their third back-up nuclear-bomb-proof bunker in New Zealand.

Being reckless with money is beyond foolish.

But being good with money also means keeping it in perspective.

Do you find yourself caring more about money then you’d like to admit as you chase down financial independence, strive to secure your retirement, or even just pursue higher returns from the stock market? Bare your soul in the comments below!

p.s. Since I wrote this post – and did all this musing – the larger of the disputes has been amicably resolved. Karma or coincidence? I don’t know but I’ll take it, along with the insights it produced. A friend who read an earlier draft suggested I hold back this update for the sake of dramatic tension, but I don’t want anyone getting out their tiny violins for me without cause. Besides, the point is it wasn’t *really* a huge deal. Finally, pertinently, I don’t feel as relieved as I’d previously felt aggrieved…

  1. After taking into account the money I’d put in and the opportunity cost of lost earnings. []
{ 51 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

There are some writers who can knock out zingers worthy an entire article from a rival hack, and one of investing’s is Jason Zweig.

In fact it’s a good thing Zweig is so pithy, because most of the piece the following quote is from sits behind a Wall Street Journal paywall.

If I ask you in a questionnaire whether you are afraid of snakes, you might say no.

If I throw a live snake in your lap and then ask if you’re afraid of snakes, you’ll probably say yes – if you ever talk to me again.

Investing is like that: On a bland, hypothetical quiz, it’s easy to say you’d buy more stocks if the market fell 10%, 20% or more.

In a real market crash, it’s a lot harder to step up and buy when every stock price is turning blood-red, pundits are shrieking about Armageddon, and your family is begging you not to throw more money into the flames.

Then risk is no longer a notion; it’s an emotion.

If you do have a subscription to the Journal you’ll find the rest there. (Do tell us if there’s anything else to beat that opener.)

All else I can do is point you to a sample from Zweig’s Devil’s Financial Dictionary and a few wordier pieces we did on assessing your own risk tolerance:

Have a great and snake-free weekend!

[continue reading…]

{ 27 comments }

What is a master trust pension?

Photo of a nest of eggs as metaphor for a pension / nest egg.

Can I let you in on a secret? There’s been a revolution. No, not the prorogation of parliament. A pensions revolution!

I’m talking about the rise of the master trust pension.

What is a master trust pension scheme?

A master trust pension scheme is a multi-employer occupational pension scheme.

Unlike traditional employer defined contribution (DC) schemes, master trusts pool together anywhere from a handful to thousands of employers into a DC pension scheme.

There’s a good chance that you’re a member of such a scheme. From a little over two million members ten years ago, as of the start of 2019 there are 14 million master trust members.

What brought about this huge increase? For one thing, auto-enrolment. The vast majority of workers now automatically save into a pension. Master trusts have been the main recipient for this deluge of savings.

Another reason, frankly, is that master trusts are pretty darn good.

For those in the big master trust schemes, the charges are low, governance is strong, and savings are placed into low-cost baskets of globally diversified passive tracker funds.

Why should you care?

Even us diehard DIY investors have to concede that master trusts are simple and efficient.

In fact, in many respects they are the cheapest and easiest way to efficiently save towards retirement. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the trust structure means that a board of trustees oversee the running and investments of the scheme. They have a duty to invest in members’ best financial interests. Further, Investment Governance Committees (ICGs) continually assess whether members are getting value for money.

Secondly, by pooling large numbers of employers and savers together, master trusts can access huge economies of scale. The days of small employers being unable to offer affordable pensions for their employees are gone.

Thirdly, some schemes invest in assets that are difficult for DIY investors to access such as infrastructure, private equity, and property.

Finally there is a strong regulatory regime for master trusts. All new master trusts must be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. At the time of writing 27 schemes are authorised, with others awaiting sign off.

Big boys keeping fees low

The big boys in the market are NEST, People’s Pension, and NOW: Pensions. Between them they have ten million members and over £10 billion in assets under management.

Each of these offers a carefully constructed globally diversified default fund, predominantly using passive investing strategies. So costs are low, too.

NEST has an AMC of 0.3%, plus a 1.8% charge on new contributions. People’s Pension charges a sliding scale of 0.5% to 0.2% and Now: Pensions charges 0.3% plus a £1.50 admin fee per month.1

Across the whole master trust universe, the average AMC is around 0.4% to 0.5%. These charges are far below the 0.75% fees cap on auto-enrolment qualifying default funds, and give even the cheapest SIPPs a run for their money.

Appraising performance

One of the big issues with old, legacy occupational schemes is a lack of transparency on both fees and performance.

Happily, master trusts must operate in a highly transparent fashion due to new regulations.

Fees are clearly written on the doors and investment performance is – relative to the byzantine world of pensions – quite easy to check.

The best source for comparing performance is CAPA DATA, which sets out and compares performance for 95% of the market. As a data geek, it is a treasure trove of information.

Risk/return for several master trust and GPP defaults – younger saver, 30 years from retirement five-year annualised to Q1 2019, gross.

Source: Corporate Adviser, Performance Matters: Master Trust and GPP Default Report June 2019.

As you can see from the chart, performance has been variable, although most of the defaults have clustered around the 8% to 10% return mark.

  • Standard Life has been a continual lower-volatility, lower-return performer courtesy of its relatively low (c.45-50%) allocation to equities.
  • Now: Pensions has been criticised for its poor performance (principally arising from currency hedging).))
  • NEST has generally outperformed many of its peers at lower volatility, though its 5% allocation to cash for young investors has been controversial.

These returns are reasonably favourable when compared to that Monevator favourite, Vanguard’s family of LifeStrategy funds. The LifeStrategy 60 and 80 have achieved five-year annualised returns of 8.4% and 9.6% respectively at the time of writing.2

The key takeaway though is that not all master trusts are built the same. It’s worth considering whether the default option is right for you, and whether an alternative fund is more suitable for your attitude towards risk, temperament, and investment needs.

ESG options

I believe another feather in the cap for master trusts are the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) options. (Not everyone necessarily agrees!)

Most master trusts are publicly committed to considering ESG investments and set out their approach to considering financially material ESG factors in their Statement of Investment Principles.

It’s not just lip service. New DWP rules require that from 1 October 2019 pension schemes must have a policy with respect to financially material ESG considerations. Schemes must have a policy on the extent to which they consider the views of members and beneficiaries, including ethical views, and also the social and environmental impact.

Most master trusts have an ethical fund option. Master trusts are also taking a public stance towards ESG investing.

NEST has recently announced it is divesting from tobacco companies in all funds. Likewise, The People’s Pension has begun to reduce allocations to fossil fuels in its funds.

Many default master trust pensions already adopt some form of ESG screening. The majority of remaining defaults are considering introducing ESG screening over the next two years.

The performance of the two leading ESG providers, NEST and The People’s Pension, is also highly encouraging. NEST’s Ethical Growth fund notched a five-year 68% return (compared to 56% for its standard fund). Similarly, The People’s Pension’s Ethical fund returned 72% over five years (compared to 50% in its default fund).3

Furthermore, some master trusts are not run for profit. For example, The People’s Pension is owned by B&CE, a not-for-profit originally focused on providing financial services for those in the construction industry and now aiming to provide simple affordable financial services to everyone. NEST is a quasi-government entity set up to offer pensions for everyone, especially those on low-incomes and historically regarded as being uneconomical to traditional pension providers.

For Islamic investors, several master trusts offer Sharia-compliant funds. Note these tend to be 100% equity-based funds.

Who can have a master trust pension?

If you are one of the millions in a master trust, then most schemes allow you to transfer your other occupational DC pots into your master trust scheme.

Options are unfortunately more limited for the self-employed. Most master trusts are not open to the self-employed. However, NEST is open to the self-employed (due to their public service obligation).

Transferring and consolidating pots has become much easier recently. Consolidating your pension pots is often a good ‘spring clean’ (though it’s worth checking the ‘buts’). Most schemes no longer charge for transfers out. Those that do are capped at 1%.

Given that the vast majority of master trusts are relatively new concerns, most don’t levy transfer out fees either.

Almost all the master trust schemes employ an electronic system provided by a firm called Origo. Origo is a FinTech firm, owned by several financial institutions, set up to improve efficiencies in the financial services space.

Transfers are now mostly processed electronically (rather than paper!) through the Origo system. The result is that transfer times have come crashing down. Origo transfers take on average only nine days, although there’s still variability between providers.

Flexibility

It’s worth knowing not all master trusts offer the complete pension flexibilities introduced in 2015. For example, only around half of the master trusts offer income drawdown without the need to transfer out of the default fund.

This means savers may have to transfer out to access their pension flexibly.

Generally speaking, master trusts are working on adding more flexibility and improving savers’ transition from accumulation to deaccumulation in line with FCA guidance on retirement pathways.

However, I’m not aware of any schemes looking into advised drawdown – that is providers guiding savers towards a ‘safe withdrawal rate’.4

Noble-prize winning economist William Sharpe described the safe withdrawal rate as “the nastiest hardest problem in finance.” Good luck to us mere mortals in figuring that one out!

The default funds are typically ‘lifestyled’, so that as savers approach retirement age their equity allocations are reduced. Exactly how this lifestyling works varies from scheme to scheme.

Lifestyling is based on the principle that savers annuitise their portfolio on retirement. Given that most pension savers now opt for drawdown over an annuity, the jury is out on whether lifestyling requires an overhaul.

Incidentally, I’m aware that for one scheme some savers choose to keep pushing their retirement age out to avoid being lifestyled, which means manually changing their ‘retirement age’ to prevent their pension being moved out of equities!

Master trust pensions: A summary

  • Master trust pension schemes offer a cheap, efficient, and easy way to save for retirement. The master trust structure has a lot of strong corporate governance built-in and allows for low-cost investing.
  • We’ve had almost seven years of auto-enrolment and performance data for master trusts. And the returns have been good.
  • The regulatory framework and trust-based nature of master trusts provide protections for savers. Unlike the ‘dark ol’ days’ the schemes are transparent and upfront. Fees and charges aren’t hidden behind a wall of jargon.
  • Master trusts also take their ESG responsibilities seriously and by law are required to consider and set them out publicly. Many defaults already incorporate some level of ESG screening.
  • Transferring and consolidating pots is much easier these days. For those in a master trust already, you’ll likely be able to easily consolidate your other occupational DC pension pots. However, things are trickier for the self-employed – as far as I’m aware NEST is the only provider (though the pressure is on to improve access to pensions for the self-employed).
  • The default funds are lifestyled as savers approach retirement. Many master trusts allow flexible access to pension pots, though some require savers to transfer out to get the full range of pension flexibilities.
  1. Now: Pensions’ fee has been subject to some controversy. See: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/now-pensions-fee-controversy-escalates/. []
  2. Source: Trustnet []
  3. Source: The Good Guide to Pensions []
  4. I have seen that some providers are working towards a non-advised retirement account – so good things seem to be on the horizon for savers. []
{ 20 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

There’s a story in ThisIsMoney about what’s apparently the first-ever retirement interest-only mortgage that’s ‘fixed for life’:

The over-50s deal from Hodge features a fixed rate of 4.35 per cent with no term limit, meaning the borrower will never need to remortgage, or risk falling onto a standard variable rate.

The unique deal is a type of retirement interest-only mortgage, a relatively new type of home loan that lets a borrower take out a mortgage and then only pay back the interest each month.

We could have a spirited debate about the pros and cons of this innovation, but it actually sparked another thought.

These retirement interest-only mortgages have been a bit of a flop. They were introduced as a way to help stop the many people who took out interest-only mortgages in the housing boom from having to leave their homes because they’ve not actually been saving the capital required to pay off their mortgage.

Apparently only a few hundred people have signed up to them so far, even though there are tens of thousands of people who would appear to be in need.

Perhaps even 25 years isn’t long enough for some people to have a lightbulb moment – or maybe they all have a cunning plan?

Not all oligarchs

What I found myself musing on though is whether financial services firms will similarly start innovating for people at the other end of the spectrum – modestly financially independent and asset-rich early retirees?

I’ve already explained how hard it was for me to get a mortgage, despite my technically not needing one. I was an ultra-low risk for banks, but they wouldn’t look at me because I didn’t fit their profiles.

Similarly, blogger ermine has explained that as an income-poor early retiree he might as well not exist in the eyes of many financial services companies.

The financial independence community sometimes ponders what would happen if it became mass-movement. Would the capitalism that makes it possible fall over?

I wouldn’t hold your breath for an empirical answer to that question. But on the level of day-dreaming it’s fun to wonder how financial services might be reshaped by a widespread shift to extreme-saving and ultra-compounding.

If you were granted one wish from the financial services industry for something for the likes of us, what is the first product or service you’d ask for?

[continue reading…]

{ 32 comments }