≡ Menu
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Here’s a tenuously introduced quote from one of the greatest films ever made, The Matrix:

Agent Smith: It seems that you’ve been living two lives. One life, you’re Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, pay your taxes, and you… help your landlady carry out her garbage.

The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias ‘Neo’ and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.

What a movie! What a two-hour paradigm shift!

My only excuse for quoting it here is that I’ve found it popping into my head recently whenever I’ve read about the storming performance of the US stock market over the past decade.

Because as a British investor – where the FTSE 100 is barely higher than it was 20 years ago – who reads a lot of US investment blogs, one can feel like a bit of a Mr. Anderson.

Source: Bps and pieces

In one life, it’s party time!

In the other, the Brexit-aggravated boondocks.

British steal

Yes, that FTSE 100 return doesn’t include the hefty dividend stream an investor would have received over the two decades, which would appreciably boost the return.

And yes, the wider UK All-Share has done a little better.

No, a private investor shouldn’t have all their money in the UK market anyway – arguably only about 5-10% – so this isn’t the last word on the fate of Monevator reader portfolios.

Granted, all of it. But that’s not what I’m writing about here.

What I’m talking about is a US stock market performance that is edging into the euphoric.

Albeit one where there’s been enough consternation about valuations over the past few years to perhaps work against a classic late-stage market mania – so far.

American markets made great again

The US market experience really has been exceptional, even as it’s crept up on us. As Michael Batnick writes at The Irrelevant Investor:

Looking at the numbers, one can easily make the argument that we just lived through the best ten-year period ever for U.S. stocks.

Surprised? Check out his graphs for a glimpse at investing nirvana.

The danger always is to extrapolate the recent past into the future. As I say, plenty of people have been burned by actively steering away from highly-rated US equities over the past few years – including many commentators on this website. But their misfortune at missing out only increases the chances of a can’t-lose mentality taking US equities to bubblicious heights, as ever more people throw in the towel and belatedly chase performance.

Incidentally I’ve missed out, too. I’ve been underweight (though far from zero-weight) US equities for years.

Like bonds in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the maths tells you to be wary. Then the subsequent returns inform you that you were an idiot.

That’s stock markets for you – making the majority of people feel like dummies since the 17th Century.

Smorgasbord investing

Happily, my nervousness at US valuations (particular in my beloved tech sector) has mostly been tempered by a hard won humility as an investor – as well as a respect for momentum in markets.

Hence I’ve always kept a varying-sized slug of US equity in my actively-managed portfolio, rather than bailing out entirely, despite my queasiness.

Most of us will do better to invest passively in a broad global tracker specifically because it hides what’s in the sausage from all but the most curious. Smart passive investors know enough to know that they don’t know better…

Either way, it’s paid to keep exposure to the US, and it’s cost you to be invested elsewhere.

And carrying that opportunity cost is just fine.

I often rail against what I call ‘in or out’ thinking, where someone will say they are avoiding equities because they’re too expensive or that they’ve no money in Europe or the UK because they hate the politics or they’re putting all their money into gold or Bitcoin.

All are fast track paths to being a terrible investor – and that’s true even if your hero call pays off in the short-term. Because nothing lasts forever, and I don’t believe anyone has ever proven their ability to perfectly switch all-in bets ahead of slumps and booms. (Remember the patchwork quilt of annual asset class returns?)

Indeed it’s at times like these that it’s most important to remember why some of those laggards in your portfolio got into the mix.

Comparing out-of-favour assets to the underappreciated human appendix, Phil Huber writes:

…certain aches and pains are part and parcel of owning a diversified portfolio.

The biggest mistake an investor can make is to put their holdings on the operating table and remove the very thing(s) they might need or want the most when the anesthesia eventually wears off.

In other words, there’s hope for my UK value stocks yet!

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 30 comments }

Anyone remember Pension Liberation schemes? Back before the last government’s pension freedoms released us from the regulatory chains, all sorts of bottom-feeders tried to entice savers to move their pensions into byzantine schemes run from famously safe places like Panama.

This trickle of people cashing in their Defined Benefit (‘DB’, or ‘final salary’) pensions turned into a flood when George Osborne introduced his pension freedoms in 2015.

Yet considering how momentous a personal decision it is, there’s not much discussion about the actual process of transferring out of a defined benefit scheme.

You only get one shot at preparing for retirement, so this is not something you want to screw up.

So today I’m going to cut through the convoluted world of DB pension transfers and try to explain how they work.

Buckle up! We’ll start with baby steps but we’re going to go deep.

Defined Benefit pensions

A Defined Benefit or DB pension is a pension in which an employer promises a set of benefits based on a predetermined formula.

Thus – hold on to your hats folks – the ‘benefit’ is ‘defined’.

The benefit – that is, the pension income you get when you retire – is usually based on a combination of factors including salary, length of employment, and retirement age.

Benefits are typically expressed in pounds per annum. Most people, when they retire, can also take some of their benefits as a tax-free lump sum (aka the Pension Commencement Lump sum ‘PCLS’ in fancy terms).

If you leave an employer before you retire, your benefits in that employer’s scheme are referred to as ‘deferred’ benefits. This benefit is revalued each year before you retire, and, once in payment, the benefit increases according to the scheme rules.

Most schemes also provide a death benefit, usually 50% of the benefit, paid out to the widow(er) and dependants. The benefits payable vary according to the rules of the scheme (which you can and should request to see).

The big benefits of a defined benefit scheme

With a DB pension, the investment risk lies with the trustees of the scheme – and with your employer who sponsors the scheme.

It’s up to the trustees to invest the scheme’s assets to make enough investment return to meet their promises. And if there is a deficit between the money in the scheme and the amount needed to meet the promises made, then the employer has to top-up the scheme.

This means that for a saver with a DB pension, there are fewer sleepless nights when, say, the stock market loses its marbles because Trump decides to start a trade war.

Similarly, there’s no admin or management required by member of DB schemes. Your scheme is responsible for all the paperwork. You just receive money in your account each month and a P60 at the end of the year.

Easy as pie, and like annuities, this simplicity can provide for great peace of mind.

What is Defined Contribution?

In contrast, the income you receive in retirement from a Defined Contribution pension (‘DC’, not to be confused with David Coulthard) is based on the amount you’ve and your employer has put into it over the years and the investment return you’ve made.

Unlike with a DB pension, the investment risk and responsibility now lies with the saver. It’s your responsibility to manage your pot. Great news for Monevator if it means more eyeballs on the site!

While some people get their thrills from investment – The Accumulator, I’m looking at you – for most people a DC pension means more work to do, more risk, and potentially more sleepless nights.

Why would you transfer from DB to DC?

You might be thinking why on earth would anyone transfer from the safety of a DB pensions scheme – with its guaranteed, rising income for life with no investment or management risk – to take on the uncertainty of a DC scheme?

I mean, there’s always bungee jumping and cave diving with sharks if you want a little more excitement in your life?

However there are some valid reasons why you might consider transferring from DB to DC:

  • Flexibility – A DB pension pays a set income for life with no ability to access capital except in particular circumstances (such as if you’re seriously ill or your benefits are very small). In reality many people find that their expenses are lumpy. You’ve got to fund those round the world cruises somehow! Most DC arrangements can offer greater flexibility (such as cash, drawdown, and annuities).
  • Ill health – You or a family member might have a life-limiting illness that means the flexibility of DC is preferable. DB schemes can cash out your pension where (broadly) you’re expected to live for less than one year or can pay your pension early if you meet certain ill-health requirements, but if you don’t meet that standard you’ll have to plan ahead.
  • Relative importance of capital over income – If you have many other significant pension pots, you may end up with more income than you need but less capital than you’d like. Transferring out of one of your DB schemes may help balance your income and capital more appropriately for you.
  • Little need for death benefits – Your spouse may have their own substantial pension, meaning that you’d rather your pension goes towards other family members or dependents.

Who can transfer out of a defined benefit scheme?

Most private sector DB pensions are transferrable – with some strings attached.

Unless you are within 12 months of retirement age you usually now have an automatic right to transfer. If you don’t have an automatic right to transfer, you can ask the trustees or administrators of the scheme to let you transfer anyway (called a ‘discretionary’ transfer).

Unfortunately, if you’re got a public sector pension it’s unlikely that you can transfer out. In 2015 the Government changed the rules such that unfunded pension schemes – such as the NHS Pension Scheme – can’t be transferred out.

There’s also the potential option of a partial transfer. This where part of your pension can be transferred out at retirement. Not all schemes allow members to undertake partial transfers, and in some schemes they are prohibited. Indeed there appears to be only one scheme actively exploring this.1

How do you transfer?

What follows applies if you have an automatic right to transfer.

To start with you need to get a statement of your Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) or ‘Transfer Value’. You’ve got a statutory right to request one statement per 12-month period.

The scheme trustees don’t have to provide any more in the twelve-months. But, generally speaking, unless you’re taking the mick and asking for several every year, they’ll likely issue you a second one if you ask nicely (though they might charge a fee).

The trustees usually have three months to fulfil a request for a Transfer Value statement.

Based on some fancy number crunching, the Transfer Value sets out the pounds and pence value of your benefits as at a certain ‘guarantee date’.

With your Transfer Value in hand, you’ve got three months in which to accept. If you do accept, the trustees must generally pay out within six months of the ‘guarantee date’.

If your Transfer Value is above £30,000 you must get regulated advice before you transfer. Your advisor will consider the value of the pension pot as well as your retirement needs and priorities (more on this in a bit). They’ll also look at your attitudes to investment risk and your capacity for loss, taking into account your other pensions and assets.

The advisor must then make a recommendation – either stay in the scheme or transfer out. (Nobody say Remain or Leave!) They must explain why their advice applies.

The scheme usually then pays the agreed lump sum into a DC plan (usually a SIPP) or uses it to buy an annuity, as recommended by the advisor.

You do not have to follow the adviser’s recommendation but may ask for a transfer to go ahead in any case. However, the advisor and the pension provider that was proposing to facilitate the transfer may decline to do so.

In that event, you’ll need to find an alternative pension provider to transfer to.

Before you transfer your pension

It’s important to know before you transfer that it is very, very unlikely that you can reverse a transfer.

A transfer means a substantial change in risk – especially investment risk. And you become responsible for managing your pension. This something you might welcome as a sprightly 50-something but perhaps less so as a nonagenarian. Unfortunately we won’t all age as gracefully as Queen Liz.

Similarly, after transferring and unless you opt for an annuity, the benefits you’ll receive will change from a set regular income for life into some type of drawdown plan. More flexibility means more options, but also more ways for things to go wrong.

Another downside: Pension transfer advice does not come cheap. You are usually looking at a total cost of around £3,000 to £4,000, though it could be substantially higher.2

Before you even think about transferring it’s worth asking whether the cost of advice is worth it. This is where something called ‘Triaging’ comes in.

Triaging: good and bad

Triaging – in this less bloody context – is where an advisor, planner, or accountant provides information about DB and DC pensions to help a saver decide whether to take advice.

In effect, it’s a bit like a weeding-out service, to help prevent members from taking unnecessary, expensive advice.

The purpose is to educate and inform. Not advise. A member receiving a triage service may have the pros and cons of a DB transfer explained to them, an overview of how DB benefits work, and the differences between DB and DC pensions laid-out.

But, importantly, they won’t be told whether it’s worth them transferring.

Because of the chill hand of the FCA, there is a limit to what someone offering Triaging can do.3 It must ultimately be the customer’s choice whether they to proceed to get advice. Some therefore consider triaging to be a bit of a waste of time.

Regardless, in the first instance it’s worth seeking out free guidance from Pensions Wise and information from the Pensions Advisory Service4.

However, bear in mind that again they only provide guidance.

Regulatory landscape

STOP PRESS! Rather annoyingly, between writing the bulk of this post and it being published the FCA released new survey data on DB to DC transfers. (The inconsiderate fiends!) Anyway, the FCA’s data found that nearly 70% of clients were advised to transfer – a level the FCA has publicly stated it finds to be too high. It does seem a shocking figure, but it’s open to debate how representative the FCA’s survey is. The survey data doesn’t appear to take into account customers triaged out (see my comments above) and according to the Personal Finance Society it wasn’t a truly representative sample of advisers. Similarly, the survey data relates to the period up to October 2018. This is an important date as we’ll see below.

Accepting then that the situation seems to be developing quickly, I still think it’s helpful to provide some of the regulatory background to give an idea of the environment potential transferees are walking into.

Following some harrowing findings on investigating how the system outlined was working, the FCA brought in a few changes in late 2018 on transfers that involve regulated advisers. (For instance, the FCA found less than half of the advice given out was suitable.)

In short, the starting assumption is now that a DB transfer is unsuitable. For a transfer to be suitable it has to pass what’s called an Appropriate Pension Transfer Analysis ‘APTA’. This is a series of factors that advisors must consider and then base their recommended action on.

The FCA also brought in something called the Transfer Value Comparator ‘TVC’. This is a graphical comparison of your Transfer Value compared to how much it would cost to replace the DB benefits with an equivalent annuity.

Below is an example of a TVC:

Pretty clear, no?

One final regulatory matter. On 1 April, the FCA increased the Financial Ombudsman’s award limit from £150,000 to £350,000. The Personal Finance Society thinks that this will lead to many advisers leaving the DB transfer market due to the rising cost of professional indemnity insurance.

Factors to consider with transfers

We mentioned above about the Appropriate Pension Transfer Analysis, so let’s end by looking at what the factors it takes into account and what they mean in practice:

Returns – What potential returns could an investor receive from the proposed investment arrangements? This should be commensurate with the assets being invested in. (So for example you shouldn’t forecast equity-like returns for a gilt-dominated portfolio).

Charges – All charges – both upfront and ongoing – should be included. For drawdown portfolios these can be significant.

Pattern of income/capital/cashflows – The proposed transfer should set out a cashflow analysis or explain how the saver can meet their income and capital retirements. This should be comparative – in other words contrasting what’s being given up with what’s being gained.

Plan beyond life expectancy – What happens if the saver lives beyond their forecast life expectancy? What is the plan given they may run out of money in retirement?

Death benefit – The analysis should take into account any death benefits given up, and to the extent income/capital is required on death, how those requirements can be met.

Trade-offs and priorities – It’s unlikely that all of a saver’s objectives can be met, so it should be clear what trade-offs may be needed and how those fit into a saver’s priorities.

Pension Protection Fund (‘PPF’) – Advisors should also be clear and balanced about the pros and cons of a scheme entering the PPF (or a PPF-plus arrangement). Have a look at my earlier post for more information on the PPF.

Wrapping up

Defined Benefit pensions are incredibly valuable, but there are circumstances where a DB transfer might be suitable. However the starting point from the FCA’s perspective is that all DB transfers are unsuitable.

If you’ve got a pension pot of over £30,000 you must get advice. This advice must set out a value comparison between what you’re giving up and what you’re getting. It must also consider the factors mentioned above, and explain how they apply in any particular case.

Transfers are expensive – at least several thousand pounds – so it’s worth considering getting some more information or going through Triage to work out whether getting advice is worth it.

Obviously all our thoughts above are just for additional information, as opposed to advice, so don’t think they’re the last word for you!

Further reading

Have a look at these previous posts on DB transfers where transferees share their experience (but bear in mind both were written prior to those 2018 changes):

Read all The Detail Man’s previous posts on Monevator.

  1. Ford: http://www.pensions-expert.com/DB-Derisking/Ford-set-to-offer-partial-transfers?ct=true. []
  2. At time of writing, for example, see: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pension-transfer-charges/) ((This is leaving aside the controversial practice of ‘contingent charging’. See: https://www.ftadvisor.com/pensions/2019/05/16/mps-urge-fca-to-ban-contingent-charging/ []
  3. Advisors have been strongly warned not to cross the ‘advice boundary’ []
  4. Collectively being rebranded, along with the Money Advice Service, into the Money and Pensions Service []
{ 26 comments }

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q2 2019

The portfolio is up 11.99% year to date.

Reading my media news feed feels a bit like living in a small American town just before the phone lines are cut and the psychopaths run amok. As if in the opening scenes of a B-movie horror flick, everyday life seems wholesome, and all is normal on the surface…

…but my, those shadows look menacing. And is it just me, or are they closing in?

There’s a dystopian dimension seeping out of my smartphone where:

  • Strongmen are unraveling democracy
  • Surveillance capitalists are manipulating our minds
  • Truth is imperiled by alternative facts
  • Technology is rendering us obsolete
  • Prosperity’s dream is fading
  • We’re sleepwalking into a climate catastrophe and social collapse
  • We’re too divided to talk to each other, never mind escape this mess

Not-so-scary movie

Happily there’s another movie playing – global prosperity is still advancing in the theatre of our portfolios.

This picture is not so compelling because it’s plotted in numbers, it’s agonisingly slow, the pacing is awful, and frankly, it’s not very believable, fashionable, or exciting.

But in the eight years we’ve been watching the world through our Slow & Steady passive portfolio, a more hopeful storyline has unfolded:

  • The astonishingly innovative US continues to kick-ass and you should never bet against it solving its problems while creating a slew of new ones.
  • Europe has held together and stubbornly refuses to crack, despite the dire predictions of all those who think compromise is a synonym for weakness.
  • The UK is doing okay, though it’s lagged the rest of Europe throughout the last decade.
  • Japan is fine, too, regardless of its supposed stagnation and all the decades lost down the back of the sofa.
  • Advances in many emerging markets show prosperity is still spreading around the globe, though progress is uneven.

Every corner of the world has repaid our investing faith, regardless of our ambient level of anxiety. The doomster asset classes – government bonds, gold, and cash – haven’t been needed… yet.

Perhaps the horror is real? Perhaps the phone lines are about to go dead?

Perhaps, but I only have a few lenses through which to view the world: my personal experience, my media experience, and my market experience. And two out of three of them aren’t playing a scary movie.

Here’s the latest portfolio numbers in See-No-Evil-o-Vision:

The annualised return of the portfolio is 9.54%.

Last quarter’s recovery has continued, and we’re now up 12% in the first half of 2019.

The overall annualised return of 9.54% is very healthy. Call it 6.5% real return after inflation – that’s way ahead of the expected return I would have hoped for back in 2011. It’s also way ahead of my bank account and my salary negotiation skills.

The Slow and Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. It was set up at the start of 2011 with £3,000. An extra £955 is invested every quarter into a diversified set of index funds, tilted towards equities. You can read the origin story and catch up on all the previous passive portfolio posts.

New transactions

Every quarter we lock £955 into the wicker man of global capitalism and pray for a successful harvest. The virginal cash sacrifice is split between our seven funds according to our predetermined asset allocation.

We rebalance using Larry Swedroe’s 5/25 rule but that hasn’t been activated this quarter. Therefore our trades play out like this:

UK equity

Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust – OCF 0.08%

Fund identifier: GB00B3X7QG63

New purchase: £47.75

Buy 0.229 units @ £208.97

Target allocation: 5%

Developed world ex-UK equities

Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-UK Equity Index Fund – OCF 0.15%

Fund identifier: GB00B59G4Q73

New purchase: £353.35

Buy 0.945 units @ £373.95

Target allocation: 37%

Global small cap equities

Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund – OCF 0.38%

Fund identifier: IE00B3X1NT05

New purchase: £57.30

Buy 0.192 units @ £298.28

Target allocation: 6%

Emerging market equities

iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.24%

Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £95.50

Buy 57.12 units @ £1.67

Target allocation: 10%

Global property

iShares Global Property Securities Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.22%

Fund identifier: GB00B5BFJG71

New purchase: £57.30

Buy 25.298 units @ £2.27

Target allocation: 6%

UK gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.15%

Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

New purchase: £296.05

Buy 1.721 units @ £172.01

Target allocation: 31%

Global index-linked bonds

Royal London Short Duration Global Index-Linked Fund – OCF 0.26%

Fund identifier: GB00BD050F05

New purchase: £47.75

Buy 45.261 units @ £1.06

Target allocation: 5%

New investment = £955

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.25% per annum.

This model portfolio is notionally held with Cavendish Online. Take a look at our online broker table for other good platform options. Look at flat fee brokers if your ISA portfolio is worth substantially more than £25,000. The Slow & Steady portfolio is now worth £45,000 but the fee saving isn’t quite juicy enough for us to push the button on the move yet.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.18%

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.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 25 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

A quick housekeeping note – it transpires the Google Sheet we embedded into our fund-of-funds update this week didn’t get inserted into at least some emails.

If you were confused – or thought the image from Trustnet was the sum total of all the tabling we had for you – then you’re in for a treat! Or at the very least, less confusion.

Please see the full article with table on Monevator. (Sorry for the mishap. I’d say it’s Google’s fault but they can afford better lawyers than we can.)

Incidentally, I know there’s a whole tribe of you who only read Monevator via email and have forgotten the blog ever existed. For example, now and then a reader will write to me to explain they can’t see how to “let us know in the comments below” in their email, or similar.

If that’s you, then you might check out the blog now and then you know. Especially for those reader comments. Like all village squares we have one or two… characters… but the vast majority are constructive contributors.

In particular, we can’t usefully reply to many of the personal reader queries we get over email, for a whole stack of reasons. But a comment left on a new article will often elicit a useful response.

Career change in range

Finally, last week’s article from The Atlantic on the half-life of a cutting-edge working life touched a few nerves.

If you’ve reflected on it and wondered if it’s now time to do something different, I came across an interesting book extract on a blog called Quiet Revolution this week. The new book’s author, David Epstein, argues that taking a roundabout route to where you want to be has an illustrious history, adding:

Career goals that once felt safe and certain can appear ludicrous, to use [Charles] Darwin’s adjective, when examined in the light of more self‐knowledge.

Our work preferences and our life preferences do not stay the same, because we do not stay the same.

Epstein’s book is called Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, and to somebody who decades ago resolved – after an early brush with computer science – to ensure I didn’t need to know the deep details of anything just to pay my rent, the title appeals.

Given how many stories we hear from worried mid-lifers that go something like “I know the youngsters are keeping me away from the machines” – as one of those smart commenters of ours put it – it might be worth a read.

[continue reading…]

{ 17 comments }