≡ Menu

Weekend reading: Bring me sunshine

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Feels like only a couple of weeks ago I was reminding everyone via Weekend Reading that shares can go down as well as up.

Actually that’s because it was on a couple of weeks ago. Twice.

I needn’t have bothered. The past ten days – and most especially the past week – has provided an exhilarating reminder that stock markets can fall faster than you can say “no, for the hundredth time, UK government bonds are not riskier than shares.”

Indeed this has been the fastest decline from a high for the US stock market of all-time. UK shares are down 11% for the week, too, and the average UK pension fund has lost a whopping 5% to 6% of its value since Monday. Put that into your SWR calculator and smoke it.

Things were definitely feeling freaky by the fourth day of 3-4% declines. When the US market bounced higher into the close on Friday – perhaps on the expectation that central banks will make some sort of statement about interest rate cuts this weekend – you could almost feel the relief, even though all the main indices still ended the day in the red.

UK government bonds, for the record, are up.

Unstoppable

Just in case you’ve been living in a bunker – which is where we’ll all be in a few weeks, according to some – the cause is the novel coronavirus. COVID-19, as we groupies have started to call it.

This pesky not-quite-a-critter has been causing traders to second-guess their portfolios since it came onto the radar early this year. Only a few weeks ago I spoke with The Accumulator and revealed that I’d moved to my largest ever cash position in my portfolio, naughty active trader that I am. But in case that sounds clever, know that I’d halved this horde by the middle of the month when I saw the log graph of Chinese infections flattening out and thought, like many, that the end was possibly in sight.

Oops!

Below are two resources I’ve been glued to for weeks. You can take what you want out of the data they present – squint and it’s still possible to be optimistic – but for me that’s the beauty of them. Just the facts, ma’am:

I’ll keep checking in with those sites, but I suspect we’re in new phase now.

Everything changed for me (and many others, it seems, given the market sell-off) when it became clear that Italy had a major outbreak on its hands, almost overnight.

Italians are a warm, sociable, and tactile people with a beautiful country that people like to visit. I felt it was potentially game over for containment after that.

I won’t bore you with too much of my poundshop epidemiology. Suffice to say I have come to see the logic behind medical views like this:

Lipsitch predicts that within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent of people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. But, he clarifies emphatically, this does not mean that all will have severe illnesses.

“It’s likely that many will have mild disease, or may be asymptomatic,” he said.

As with influenza, which is often life-threatening to people with chronic health conditions and of older age, most cases pass without medical care. (Overall, about 14 percent of people with influenza have no symptoms.)

The whole article is worth a read if you want to know more lore about COVID-19.

Incalculable

Perhaps the coronavirus will be with us for a year or longer, until it burns itself out.

Three months ago it didn’t exist in humans.

What does this mean for the world, for its economy, and for the future earnings of companies?

Markets are not falling because teenage traders are scared witless of a bogeyman. This seems much bigger than SARS and much deadlier than swine flu. To my mind the declines are a rational response, as investors try to discount three aspects of this health scare:

  • The economic cost of the disease and death it causes.
  • The economic cost of the attempt to avoid that disease and death.
  • A bonus uncertainty discount because this situation is novel and we don’t know how exactly different companies and sectors will fare.

Only a market actually has any hope of figuring this out, because it’s so darn complicated.

For example, people may think it’s a practical idea to close airports and send everyone home from work. But that would have a massive economic impact, with long-term consequences.

Tax receipts would be lower, for instance, and so spending on other deadlier illnesses stretched. The supply of food, drugs, and other essentials would be disrupted. You might kill hundreds of people out of sight in an effort to avoid a couple of hundred people catching COVID-19 and a dozen dying a month before they would have anyway.

This is a nasty virus and any death it causes is a tragedy for that person and their friends and families. We should take reasonable steps to slow it.

But look at who is most likeliest to be killed by the virus ((From the site: This probability differs depending on the age group. The percentage shown below does NOT represent in any way the share of deaths by age group. Rather, it represents, for a person in a given age group, the risk of dying if infected with COVID-19.)):

*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%).

Source: Worldometers

The blunt economic truth is many if not most of the small minority (c.2%) of infected people who may ultimately be killed by COVID-19 would probably have died of something else before too long, anyway ((Barring a mutation into something nastier.)). It’s horrible to think in these terms, but this is exactly the sort of choice governments are forced to make when deciding how to respond.

It’s also what the market is trying to guesstimate. Actual deaths will probably not be too insanely disruptive in a strict economic sense, even if it becomes a pandemic. (Most of its victims aren’t working, and most of their consuming is done.) But trying to slow the rate of deaths could still cost global GDP at least a trillion dollars, according to one estimate by economists today. That’s a high price to pay for something that may not even be effective.

Singapore and China have seemingly had some success in containing the virus. However it’s hard to imagine Western populations following their protocols.

Slowing down the rate of transmission could get us to a vaccine with fewer COVID-19 deaths. That would be desirable, notwithstanding my earlier comments about unintended consequences.

But keep in mind this kind of virus mutates. So a vaccine may not be fully effective, and would probably need continual updating. Or it may arrive when the virus is close to extinguishing itself anyway, and ultimately be of little practical use.

Unwavering

To my mind then the market declines have been orderly and pretty logical, in the face of the potential disruption. Outside some extremely expensive-looking glamour stocks and some clearly threatened individual sectors (especially tourism), most markets have declined by about 10-12%. Sectors have similarly declined about 10-12%. Everything has de-rated a notch, in other words, mostly from high levels.

The market seems to be saying we’re all in this together. Not quite the spirit of Brexit Britain or Trump Towers, I understand, but probably true. So its best response is to knock a year or twos of profits off the spreadsheet and wait to see if there’s a reason to put them back on, or else to get more aggressive.

So much for the wisdom of crowds. What should individual investors do?

I can tell you what investors have been doing, which is trade. Retail investor favourites like investment trusts plunged on Friday morning before recovering as the day went on. And in the US, Friday saw the first ever $100 billion trading volume day in a single security – the S&P 500 ETF with the ticker SPY.

As I noted on Twitter on Friday morning:

At least one UK broker/platform seems to have frozen with today’s torrent of selling and is currently unable to execute trades. 2008 vibes. Please don’t panic. There are bad scenarios but there are also many scenarios. Hopefully your diversification is working. Take a breath.

In the follow-up I was asked what somebody should do if they were 10% down.

The midst of a panic is the wrong time to be asking yourself this question. I replied:

I understand it is easier said than done. Passive investing has delivered tremendous gains over the past decade, but when markets fall it can feel like you’ve set up your sun lounger in front of a combine harvester.

But weeks – or months or even years – like this are part of the deal when it comes to risk assets. We wouldn’t get those great returns without pain along the way, because if there was no pain then everyone would be at it and the gains would go away.

So stay calm. Stay diversified. Remember we’re playing a long game.

And have a great weekend! With a bit of luck the sun will come out soon. A bit of Spring might slow this thing down, if and when it takes off here.

More on Covid-19:

  • Yes, it’s worse than the flu: Busting the coronavirus myths – The Guardian

[continue reading…]

{ 78 comments }
Financial independence: How to calculate the capital and contributions you need in your ISAs and pensions post image

This is part five of a series on how to maximise your ISAs and SIPPs to achieve financial independence.

Welcome retirement fans! We’re now at the pivotal point on our journey to maximise our ISAs and pensions to achieve financial independence (FI). Together we will walk through the calculations that’ll enable you to create a robust plan to power you towards a happy independence day.

The story so far:

  • Part one set out the FI problem of retiring early using UK tax shelters.
  • Part two explained why personal pensions beat ISAs later in life.
  • Part three revealed the core principles when balancing your ISAs versus your pensions.
  • Part four showed how to choose a credible sustainable withdrawal rate (SWR) to fit your situation.

Like an excitable schoolgirl hoisting her hand in class and insisting “pick me, pick me!”, part five has now arrived on the scene to illustrate the sort of FI calculation you’ll need to do, via a simple case study.

We will cover:

How to calculate the amount of capital you’ll need to have in your ISA portfolio to sustain you until minimum pension age.

The monthly investment savings that’ll put you on course to hit your target ISA figure.

The same calculations for your pension so that the total portfolio should last for the rest of your life. ((Disasters of unprecedented proportions notwithstanding.))

These calculations will account for your income, spending, the riptides of the UK tax system, the dangers of withdrawing from a retirement portfolio, and maximising your tax shelters.  It will incorporate pragmatic expected investment return assumptions.

Let’s first survey the tax battlefield on which this game is played.

Income layer cake

This is the income tax and national insurance situation for an employee living in the UK (except Scotland) and earning up to £100,000 per year.

My apologies to the self-employed, Scottish income taxpayers, anyone earning over £100,000, and all others whose position varies from the above.

It’s important we navigate just a section of the tax maze initially, so we can establish some guiding principles. We can build out case studies from here, or you can customise the calculation to your own circumstances. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has produced an excellent summary of the broader UK tax terrain.

The income layer cake is useful for spotting things that are often overlooked, such as basic rate taxpayers pay 32% tax on income when you include National Insurance Contributions (NICs). Higher rate taxpayers pay 42% tax on income.

Basic rate taxpayers have, at most, £25,500 net income available to max out their ISA, without even looking at the demands of living expenses and pensions. I appreciate I’m skipping a boatload of exceptions – trading allowance, property allowance, dividend allowance, marriage allowance, child benefit, personal savings allowance, student loans, Scottish income tax variations… [loses the will and dies].

Okay, I’m not dead but I’ll soon wish I was. Let’s combine the income tax layer cake with a simple case study to illustrate our FI calculation. Enter an aspiring millennial FIRE-ee known as The Agglomerator.

This young upstart wants to hit FIRE as soon as possible without living in a caravan. The Agglomerator boasts these FI vital statistics:

  • Annual salary: £60,000
  • Other income: £3,000 pension match (Up to 5% of salary)
  • Salary sacrifice: Yes, but paid employee NICs only
  • Living expenses: £20,000
  • FI net income required: £20,000
  • Existing assets: £0
  • Age: 30
  • FI in: 16 years
  • ISA bridge to pension: 12 years
  • Minimum pension age: 28 years’ time when age 58.
  • State Pension age: 38 years’ time when age 68.

Here’s The Agglomerator’s income layer cake showing how much he will contribute to his pension and ISA, after expenses and tax. (Please click on the picture to see the detail.)

The full 5% pension match is claimed, of course, but all of The Agglomerator’s higher rate earnings are protected from tax by being herded into the pension.

The Personal Allowance is completely absorbed by living expenses.

There’s £22,287 left per year from Basic rate tax band earnings after pension contributions. More than one-third of that goes on living expenses, and the rest takes cover in the ISA.

Nothing is left for taxable investment accounts (GIAs) or Lifetime ISAs (LISAs).

Tax paid is £10,952 (It’d be £16,666 without any tax relief). The Agglomerator’s average tax rate is 17.38%. ((The 2% employee NICs don’t quite line up with the higher rate tax band, so the spreadsheet departs from reality to the tune of about £2 in NIC payments per year.))

You can verify your own tax obligations with a friendly tax calculator.

The Agglomerator invests £32,000 annually – split into:

  • £14,323 ISA contributions.
  • £17,724 pension contributions.

That contribution level will get The Agglomerator to FI in 16 years providing he can stay off the avocado toast

You can’t live on £20,000 a year? What’s wrong with you, you clown car driving, latte sipping snowflake? Want to retire and use central heating do you? Pah! MMM is going to punch your face off!

Excuse me. Wrong audience. Sure, this case study is going to differ from your own situation in a ton of ways, but the basic principles can be bent into your shape.

The ridiculous assumption I’m making is no promotions or side-hustles during the entire 16 year FI run, despite the fact that The Agglomerator is a determined, young go-getter with plenty of skillz. (I believe in that guy!)

Also, this is a meal for one. Two can usually live more efficiently. Although I suppose there’s always the danger that two becomes three then four…

FI calculation here we come

The key variables are:

  • How much do you need to live on?
  • For how long?

From here, we can play around with our investment contributions, saving period and expected returns to solidify our numbers.

The Agglomerator needs £20,000 to live on.

He guesses that he can build his portfolio to FI critical mass in 16 years. His raw FI numbers look like this:

Withdrawal age: After 16 years The Agglomerator will be 46 and living off his ISAs. He can access his workplace/private pensions from age 58.

Portfolio duration: his ISAs must last a minimum of 12 years from age 46 to 58.

The total portfolio must last until his clogs pop. Life expectancy data suggests that from age 46 The Agglomerator could keep on trucking for over 50 years. If you’re part of a couple, one of you might well last longer. If you don’t kill each other first.

SWR required: This is time dependent, among other things. See our FI SWR table.

  • We’re using the pessimistic green numbers on the table for our case studies.
  • Any time period over 40 years equals a 3% SWR.
  • We also need a separate, time-bound SWR to ensure our ISAs don’t run dry before we make minimum pension age.

The Agglomerator chooses a 6.5% SWR for his ISAs. That figure is a downbeat compromise between the 10-year SWR of 8% and the 15-year SWR of 5%.

Net income required: the amount you want to live on after tax. (The figures used throughout are in today’s money as we assume a real rate of investment return and inflation-adjusted expenses, income and contributions.)

Gross income required: The pre-tax income you need to pay your taxes and your living expenses. That’s not an issue for ISA withdrawals because they’re tax free. Pensions are subject to income tax on withdrawal, and the rate that will apply in the far future is anyone’s guess.

What to do?

We base our gross income calculation on today’s tax regime. Insert your own Tax Rate of the Future, if you prefer. See the Gross income calculation section below for more.

FI capital required:

ISA capital = net income / SWR
For example: £20,000 / 0.065 = £307,692

Total portfolio = gross income / SWR
For example: £20,589 / 0.03 = £686,300

You may well still be drawing some of your income tax-free from your ISAs by the time you hit minimum pension age, but we play it safe and base the total portfolio capital requirement on gross income. This gives us a little wiggle room in case tax-rates worsen or some other factor goes against us.

GIA capital could be determined using your net income, if you’re confident that your account will remain stumpy enough to stay within the bounds of your tax allowances. Gross income is safer but we’ll have to come back to this in the next episode.

Capital required in pensions by the time you FI:

Total portfolio capital minus ISA/GIA capital. For example, £378,608 in the case study.

Monthly investment: The investment contributions wrung out of our income layer cake are poured into an investment target calculator to ensure we can hit our FI capital bullseye in the swiftest possible timeframe.

Investment target calculator

Now let’s turn to the Investment Target Calculator from Candid Money. Other Investment Target calculators are available.

The calculator enables us to dial up the monthly contribution required to hit our FI capital targets. If our various assumptions don’t quite marry up then we can play with the variables a little, especially the saving period and the balance of contributions we make to our ISAs and pensions, as revealed in our layer cake.

The calculator looks like this:

Calculating ISA contributions using an investment target calculator

Target amount = ISA capital figure from the previous table.

Existing investments = Zero for The Agglomerator but you may be in better shape.

Saving period = Estimated time to FI. It’s 16 years in this case.

Annual investment return = The expected real return figure of your portfolio.

We’re choosing the rates of return for FCA prescribed projections. Yes we are.

The FCA’s current expected returns are modest in comparison to the historical averages. Their midpoint projection for equity is a 4% annual real return over the next 10 to 15 years. They offer a range of 3% to 5%.

The midpoint for conventional government bonds is a trippy -0.5%, ranging between -1% to 0%. Safe havens don’t come cheap these days.

Why consult some financial Mystic Meg when your actual returns will assuredly be different from the above? Well, the model needs a returns figure as a ranging shot on the future.

If reality proves worse than forecast then you’ll undershoot, or will need to invest more. Ideally things turn out nice again, and you’ll arrive early.

At the planning stage, our job is to use a figure that isn’t too sunny but doesn’t crush our spirit either. Pragmatism rules. Despair can go do one.

Here’s some alternative forecasts if you don’t like the one I’ve used.

The Agglomerator has a high risk tolerance so we’ll go for an expected return of 4% based on a 100% equities accumulation portfolio and a long-ish 16-year time horizon.

An 80:20 equity:bonds portfolio would give us an expected return of 3%.

(4% x 0.8) + (-0.5% x 0.2) = 3.1%

A 60:40 equity:bonds portfolio would give us an expected return of 2%.

(4% x 0.6) + (-0.5% x 0.4) = 2.2%

Income = Investment income; 0% because it’s included in our annual investment return figure, which is a total return incorporating dividends and interest.

Income paid as = ISA setting because we’re contributing to an ISA! Use the same setting for your pension income, which also grows tax-free.

Annual charge = 0.5%. That’s 0.25% platform fee, 0.25% average portfolio OCF. You can probably do better.

Are you a taxpayer? = Non-Taxpayer as we’re in an ISA. Again, use this setting for your pension as we deal with tax concerns separately.

Annual inflation rate = 0%. Our annual investment return is a real (i.e. after-inflation) return, and we assume that our contributions will be annually up-weighted for inflation.

The result = £1,200 monthly contribution required to hit The Agglomerator’s ISA capital target. Or £14,400 per year.

But you’ll notice he can only squeeze £14,323 out of his layer cake. Can The Agglomerator drum up the extra £7 per month? He mentally resolves to eat a few less pies and then gives the green light to Operation FU.

If the gulf between desire and reality is a little greater, we can adjust.

The main lever to pull is saving for longer. We can reach the same target with a lower contribution level by taking more time.

An 18-year saving period in this case study takes a fair bit of pressure off the ISA bridge. Declaring FI at age 48 means funding a 10-year gap to the minimum pension age. The Agglomerator could then use an 8% SWR for his stash.

£20,000 income / 0.08 SWR = £250,000 ISA capital target

He’d still need £686,300 across the entire portfolio but his pensions would do more of the work in this scenario:

£686,300 – £250,000 = £436,300 pension capital target

The Agglomerator’s pension contributions are far more tax efficient than his ISA contributions, so FI gets easier the more his pensions do the heavy lifting.

You can also calculate your pension contributions in exactly the same way as the ISA example above.

The target amount is your Total Portfolio Capital figure minus your ISA / GIA capital figure.

State Pension and defined benefit reinforcements are covered in the SWR bonus section below.

The maximum contribution you can make into your ISAs is £1666.66 per month or £20,000 per year.

If you need more than that to bridge your gap to minimum pension age then GIAs are the place to turn.

If your ISA bridge is very short then you’d be better off funding it purely with cash rather than a portfolio of volatile assets. ((Theoretically a ladder of inflation-linked UK government bonds would be ideal, but that’s expensive today and also technically difficult.))

This is known as liability matching. My cash assumptions lead me to believe that any gap of eight years or less should be dealt with by stockpiling cash. I’ll deal with this in more detail in the next episode but, for now, know that the FCA’s expected real return on cash is -1% per year.

Gross income calculation

Most FIRE-ees will pay income tax on their pension income when it tops £16,666 a year. (More on where I conjured that figure from below.) Our capital target figure therefore needs to take into account the taxman’s slice.

To calculate the gross income required to do this, we’ll use the very nice pension tax calculator devised by Which?.

Here’s the gross income calculation for The Agglomerator, who needs £20,000 in net income per year:

Calculating gross income using a pension tax calculator

Amount you’re withdrawing = Gross income. You won’t know this figure until you’ve played around a little. I just typed my net income into this field and kept upping it until the calculator flashed up the net income result I wanted (in the Total lump sum after tax field).

Lump sum from an income drawdown plan = No. This makes the calculator show the result in the most convenient format for planning purposes. I’ll explain my rationale on this in a sec.

Do you live in Scotland? Well, do you punk? You’ll get results tailored for Scottish income taxpayers if you tick this box.

Total tax you will pay = Amount you chip in for schools, hospitals, roads, police, social security, the military, and so on (seems like quite a good deal).

Total lump sum after tax = The net income you can expect to get, using today’s tax regime, accounting for your Personal Allowance and 25% tax-free cash.

I’ve set the calculator so it shows your tax position if 25% of your income comes from your pension’s tax-free lump sum. That means I’ve set the calc to Uncrystallised Funds Pension Lump Sum (UFPLS) mode.

That’s a mouthful in anyone’s book but the assumption doesn’t mean you have to use UFPLS in retirement – drawing 25% of your income tax-free and 75% taxed, every time you dip into your pot.

Depending on how you use your pension, you could take your 25% tax-free lump sum entirely upfront and invest it all in ISAs and GIAs. If you can tax-shelter that amount quickly enough, and draw 25% of your income from it per year, then the result is the same as UFPLS.

I’m ignoring the present day option to continue to contribute your full annual allowance into your pension, if you choose to take your 25% tax free lump sum only. I’m also discounting the fact that some could probably live tax-free for several years on their lump sum. There are many roads to Rome.

Some commentators will also warn that the 25% tax-free cash could be scrapped by a future government sniffing out bigger tax revenues. Yes, anything’s possible. Please adjust your personal calculation as you like.

My simplifying assumptions give us a rule-of-thumb for how much each person can live on tax-free using pensions:

£1 / 0.75 = £1.333 (how much each £1 of net income is worth after 25% tax relief).

£12,500 x 1.333 = £16,666 (total amount of tax-free income you can draw from your pension including the 25% tax-free amount).

Remember the State Pension is taxed as normal and for the sake of sanity I have to leave lifetime allowance calculations on the sideline for now.

Investment fees and the State Pension SWR bonus

We’re so nearly there. The other big factors are the SWR drag of investment fees once you’re a deaccumulator and the SWR spike you get from the State Pension and any defined benefit pensions that may turn up at various milestones on your FI journey.

The SWR drag of investment fees is succinctly explained here.

Thankfully you only need to subtract 50% of your investment fees from your SWR. This is for arcane reasons best explained via the link above.

My assumption:

That 0.25% deduction would reduce The Agglomerator’s Total Portfolio SWR to 2.75% for a retirement over 40 years. (The deduction also applies to the ISA SWR.)

£20,589 / 0.0275 = £748,690 capital required, instead of £686,300, for a 3% SWR.

Happily we can neutralise this blow with the State Pension SWR bonus.

If you expect your State Pension, or defined benefit (DB) pension, to charge over the hill on the day you declare FI, then just deduct those cashflows from your gross income requirement, and calculate your reduced FI capital based only on the income you need to sustain from your portfolio.

Most of us are not so lucky, except that we have the amazing Big ERN from Early Retirement Now on our side. He’s calculated how much of a bump your SWR gets from an income stream that won’t arrive for many years down the line, like the State Pension.

Read ERN’s piece on Social Security and Pensions for the full lowdown.

Pay careful attention to the part from Introducing: Big ERN’s cashflow translation tool up to What if benefits are not adjusted for inflation?

ERN’s formula also works if you have a defined benefit pension on the way.

I’ve applied ERN’s formula and the first table in his post (Impact of cashflows with Cost of living Adjustments) to The Agglomerator’s case study to simulate the impact of his State Pension:

ERN’s formula requires you to estimate the percentage value of your supplementary cashflows versus your FI portfolio.

The full new State Pension provides an annual income of £8,767. You qualify for the full whack by contributing 35 years of NICs.

8767 / 35 = £250.49 (the State Pension income you earn for each qualifying year).

The Agglomerator is due a State Pension worth £6,262 per year if he stops making NICs after 25 years of his working life. Or he could make voluntary NICs in retirement to ensure he brings home the full State Pension from age 68.

His reduced State Pension is worth 0.91% of his Total Portfolio FI capital of £686,300. His full State Pension would be worth 1.28%.

ERN’s table enables you to modify your SWR bonus depending on:

  • Asset allocation in retirement – I’ve chosen 60:40 equity:bonds.
  • Retirement length – I’ve chosen 50 years.
  • Benefit start date – I’ve chosen 22 years after FI because The Agglomerator retires at 46 but his State Pension kicks in at age 68.
  • Minimum, Median, or Maximum Value scenarios based on portfolio performance (I’ve chosen the minimum (i.e. the worst scenario) because ERN uses historic US investment returns, which may not be so bright in our future.)

Multiply ERN’s modifiers by the percentage worth of your State Pension and you have your SWR bonus. I’ve marked The Agglomerator’s bonus options in green on the table above: +0.26% SWR for his rump State Pension and +0.36% for his full one.

Either way that’s just enough to cancel the SWR drag of our investment fees. We’ll round down the rest and maybe enjoy a bit more wiggle room in the future.

If your affairs are complicated or you love modelling the detail then check out ERN’s DIY Withdrawal Rate Toolbox – a magnificent and many-headed beast of a spreadsheet. Beware those US investment returns, though.

All together now

There you have it. That’s the full, vanilla calculation, ready to be customised to fit your personal circumstances.

Once you have your plan, kick its tyres using Timeline’s free trial or Portfolio Charts or FIREcalc.

Naturally, projecting 50 or 60 years ahead involves a ludicrous number of assumptions. No plan survives contact with reality, but my aim here is to at least provide a rational platform from which you can launch yourself into the future.

I can understand the reasoning of anyone who wants to drop their SWRs by another 0.25% or 0.5%. The lower you go, the safer you may be, the longer FI will take, the more likely you are to die with pots of cash in the bank. That’s the trade-off.

Raise your SWR if you’re prepared to leave more to chance, or to  work part-time, learn some SWR kung-fu, or can fall back on a few Plan Bs – equity release, offset mortgage, downsize, rental properties, annuities, emergency fund, inheritance, a raft of defined benefit pensions, dying young 😉

The baseline SWR is most likely to be needed when market valuations are high. Now is such a time.

Next episode: I cover how to calculate how much cash you need to bridge a FI/retirement gap of 10-years or less between ISAs and pensions.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 38 comments }

Weekend reading: Vanguard is ready to let you SIPP

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Hard to make this sound anything like a (not paid for) plug, but I’m sure our many readers who’ve been waiting for it will all want to know that Vanguard is finally ready to take your money into its Personal Pension (SIPP).

I covered the main features of Vanguard’s SIPP back in December, so won’t repeat that again. Instead here’s a couple of other articles that have run to mark the launch.

From ThisIsMoney:

Jeremy Fawcett, head of Platforum, said the Vanguard Personal Pension’s competitiveness compared with Sipps offered by 14 other leading platforms across a range of investment scenarios, makes it ‘one of the lowest-cost options on the market, especially for those at the beginning of their journey’.

The research consultancy found that a typical investor would pay £172 per year to invest a £40,000 annual Sipp contribution, compared to an average of £238 on competitor platforms, with the most expensive charging £396.

And from the Financial Times [Search result]:

The Vanguard SIPP is initially only available to savers who are still building their pensions, or in accumulation, but is expected to open to retirees drawing on their pensions from the start of the 2020/21 tax year. This is a significant market.

There were 984,583 pension drawdown policies in existence at the end of March 2019, according to the results of a Freedom of Information request submitted by Hargreaves Lansdown to the Financial Conduct Authority.

It’s worth noting the Vanguard SIPP option may not be the cheapest in every case. Depending on how you want to construct your pension, it could not even have all the building blocks you need either, as it’s limited to Vanguard’s own funds.

Still, I think it’s probably going to Vanguard-ize the UK personal pensions industry in pretty short order. We can discuss what ‘Vanguard-ize’ means in the comments!

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 71 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Last week I suggested we all remember that bear markets exist and we’ll see one again, so invest accordingly.

But we can invert this with a reminder that bull markets come and go, too.

It’s difficult to recall the pessimism of 2008 and 2009 today, after a 10-year bull run.

But it’s maybe even harder to remember how out-of-love investors were with technology companies.

One advantage of writing your own investing blog that offsets some of the disadvantages (work, trolls, looking silly in retrospect) is that it enables you to track your thinking.

Often this is embarrassing. Occasionally you get a signal that you’re doing something right.

I did vast amounts of reading when I began investing nearly 20 years ago. Real-life lessons are more valuable, though.

For instance, when I wrote about what I called the investor sentiment cycle back in 2010, I’d only seen a couple of sector-specific booms and busts – though I’d read about many more.

And it’s somewhat gratifying to extract the following snippet from that 2010 post today:

Dot come again

For a contrasting unloved sector, consider technology companies.

It’s hard to remember a time when half the office owned shares in nonsense companies like Baltimore, Webvan, and NTX.

Yet it was only a brief decade ago that the Dotcom stocks were doubling in a month on a good press release and a name change.

Today roughly nobody except institutional investors bothers with individual technology shares – yet the Nasdaq tech market in the US has been quietly beating the Dow and the S&P 500 for months.

Especially this bit further down:

Perhaps Facebook or Twitter will float for what will seem a crazy valuation, but will look positively modest a few years later.

Boom!

Keen observers of the market may know that Facebook did float at $38 a share in 2012, and many pundits thought it was overpriced.

Indeed the shares plunged below $20 a few months later on fears that Facebook would not be able to capitalise on smartphone advertising.

That seems ridiculous now, particularly when you look at Facebook’s share price.

As I write its shares are up more than ten-fold from that low, at $211.

Tech tock goes the clock

Today’s investors (to some extent me included) can’t get enough of growth and tech names.

There are good theoretical reasons for this, in a low interest rate world. (See point #10 in my post on low interest rate investing issues).

But it’s surely also true that we’re happy to hold tech shares at high valuations because they’ve shot the lights out over the past ten years. Facebook is now a $600bn company, and four US tech companies in the US are valued at over a trillion dollars each!

Will this continue?

Yes –  until it doesn’t.

“Trees don’t grow to the sky”, as the old-timers used to say.

I’m not going to speculate here about when the very real potential of technological disruption is sufficiently priced-in, or whether the future will disappoint us.

But I will remind everyone again that these things move in long cycles.

Not for spooky reasons. Rather from a combination of economic reality and sentiment.

For example, emerging markets just hit a 16-year low relative to US stocks, as shown in this graphic from All Star Charts.

(Click to enlarge)

I would – and as an active investor probably should – bet that the slope won’t look that way in 2030.

For passive investors, it’s an umpteenth reminder to stay diversified across geographies, sectors (i.e. own the market) and not to get distracted by fads.

For naughty active investors, it’s a warning to stay aware. (And maybe to become a passive investor if your edge is simply that you own a lot of tech shares… 😉 )

Have a great weekend!

The title is a quote from Horace. But you knew that.

[continue reading…]

{ 50 comments }