≡ Menu
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

I am running late this week, so I’ll cut straight to the chase and suggest you check out this post on investing a lump sum over at the Of Dollars and Data blog.

Author Nick Maggiulli writes:

The main reason Lump Sum outperforms Dollar Cost Averaging [DCA] is because most markets generally rise over time.

Because of this positive long-term trend, DCA typically buys at higher average prices than Lump Sum.

Additionally, in those rare instances where DCA does outperforms Lump Sum (i.e. in falling markets), it is difficult to stick to DCA.

So the times where DCA has the largest advantage are also the times where it can be the hardest for investors to stick to their plan.

Nick made his bones with animated graphics, but he hasn’t done so many of late.

This post is full of them! The example below shows how the underperformance of dollar-cost averaging increases as the length of the buying period increases.

Our view is that deciding whether to invest a lump sum or put the money in over time is – and should be – an emotional decision, not an intellectual one.

Are you freaked out by the very idea of putting a life-changing amount of money into the market in one go?

Then don’t do it. But do make sure you have a strategy to get the money invested sooner rather than later.

As Nick vividly illustrates, most of the time you’ll pay a high price for leaving cash on the sidelines.

Important note: A long-time reader reports being cold called by an ‘adviser’ claiming to have gotten their telephone number from Monevator. I know nothing about these people and any such calls are not anything to do with this site. Please be careful! My personal rule is NEVER EVER to invest a penny as a result of a cold call. Ever. Unfortunately, people trading off the reputation of others is a growing problem, as Martin Lewis recently went to court to prove.

[continue reading…]

{ 17 comments }

Weekend reading: 29 quick rules about money

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

A few weeks ago we discussed whether investing blogs were running out of things to say.

Perhaps this reached ace writer Morgan Housel via Chinese whispers as a death cry of “FINISH HIM!”

Because as if to rub salt into the wounds, Housel has now condensed a whole blogosphere of personal finance wisdom into one short post.

My favourite sequence of his Short Money Rules:

3. Good investing is 50% psychology, 48% history, 2% finance.

4. Great investing is 40% skill, 20% luck, 40% inability to tell which is which.

5. Bad investing is 40% overconfidence, 40% fees, 20% denial that keeps it all going.

It’s all good stuff, so do check out Morgan’s complete article.

(With luck he’s dropped the mic, walked off the stage, and left the rest of us to keep on waffling these points into 1,000 word epics… 😉 )

Have a great weekend everyone!

[continue reading…]

{ 22 comments }
Weekend reading logo

Trigger warning: Thoughts on Brexit and politics more widely, followed by the week’s good reads.

The few innocents who still believed Jeremy Corbyn could be a Bobby Ewing character to wake the country from its bad Brexit dream have had a nightmare week.

The Euro-sceptic Labour leader wrote to Theresa May setting out a Brexit compromise, and as the FT [search result] puts it:

The letter not only shows how the Labour leader is trying to wriggle away from a second referendum, to the frustration of shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer.

It is also a symbolic moment that gives succour to the many Labour MPs who are tempted to back the government because they fear a no-deal exit.

Labour MPs are turning on one another, while the right of the long-fractured Tory party is playing some kind of Keyser Söze move against itself.

As this two-year farce approaches a head, you’d find more trust among slip-sliding latecomers to the Red Wedding.

No wonder the exasperated EU let slip the pretense that it believes it is negotiating with grown-ups who know what they’re doing.

Surely even the most sensible and sober-minded sovereignty-seeking Leave voter must be embarrassed by now.

Yet Remainers can’t gloat.

Two years in and the Brexiteer MP Kate Hoey is still able to label elected MEP Guy Verhofstadt an ‘unelected bureacrat’ to social media applause, with no effective push back from Remainers or the press.

Meanwhile other Brexiteer MPs state nonsense like “no Marshall Plan for us, only for Germany” – when Britain was the chief beneficiary of the Marshall plan – only to get slapped on the back by a dad’s army of Barry Blimps desperate to stockpile cabbages in an old Anderson shelter at the bottom of the garden.

The civil service is paying particular attention in its no-deal contingency planning to those same regions that cheered on Brexit – because those areas will be hardest hit by the no-deal that many of them seem to desire.

And our negotiating strategy? It’s come down to shouting “the EU will sacrifice their politics for economic reasons” whilst defending our Brexit as “more important than economics”.

Honestly, at this point party politics seems irrelevant.

Indeed expressing a view on Brexit nowadays is not so much like revealing something about yourself through a Rorschach test as playing a bookish version of Cards Against Humanity.

We’ve gone beyond parody.

Won’t anyone think of the capitalists?

Negotiating Brexit through Parliament has devolved into constitutional Jenga played by blindfolded drunks over a fire pit.

But when the dust settles we’ll (presumably) still be a functioning capitalist democracy – and then the old questions that helped fuel Brexit will return.

Among the most important: What can be done to bring ‘the people’ back to capitalism, and pronto?

To some Monevator readers over the years, my concerns about, say, income inequality or environmental degradation have sounded excessively socialist.

Which is ironic given that among many of my friends and most my family, I’m caricatured as a Vulcan-like free marketeer who knows no such thing as society and only barely has time for Building Societies.

The truth is – insert cliche – somewhere in-between.

I believe capitalism is a force for good, but it must operate within constantly reworked rules designed to spread the bounty of its golden eggs without killing the goose that laid them.

Whenever you propose a new rule – or even just a rule tweak – the laissez-faire ultras accuse you of being a confused Marxist with a share dealing account.

But I’m pragmatic.

There’s abundant evidence that well-regulated capitalist economies lead to huge wealth creation.

So regulate we must.

In contrast, planned economies lead to surplus tractors and starvation, and unfettered capitalism leads to surplus oligarchs, overpaid CEOs, cronyism, and bad taste.

Nobody except the oligarchs and CEOs want that, but that’s what we seem to be getting more of.

Few true believers

So I think it’s fair to say capitalism has seen better days in the West.

It works for me and it probably works for you.

It works-with-bells-on for the 1%.

But too many feel left behind, and a fair chunk with good reason.

Rising nationalism – Brexit, Trump – and the daily internecine battle that is politics on Twitter are signs of ebbing faith that capitalism is working.

And given capitalism is the greatest economic tool we have for fostering productivity, innovation, and higher living standards, I find that mildly terrifying.

My article How To Be A Capitalist was my own small attempt to win back some of Thatcher’s childish children (and grandchildren) who sneer at markets and vote for Corbyn while jetting around the world taking selfies on iPhones whilst decked out in designer brands.

I saw Jacob Taylor, the author of The Rebel Allocator, express a similar view in a Q&A on Abnormal Returns this week:

“Capitalism itself is under attack. I believe this to be a mistake, perhaps even an existential one for those of us in the US.

It’s easy to take for granted the little everyday ways capitalism conspires to make our lives better.

When was the last time you went to the grocery store and all of the shelves were barren? How do we coordinate to make sure we make the right amounts of everything without too much waste and rarely shortage?

I’d call that a miracle hiding in plain sight.”

There’s a disconnect between the system that supports us and how many of us feel about it.

That’s dangerous. Living with an incoherent and economically pointless Brexit could yet be the least of our concerns.

[continue reading…]

{ 20 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Fancying that you’re living at the end of progress is a recurring human failing. Think of the Roman cartographers who didn’t put anything on their maps west of Britannia, the IBM president who in the 1940s thought the world would need five computers, or the bonce who wrote The End of History.

Investors are no different. How many of us believe we’re marching ever upwards to a future inevitably dominated by index funds?

The secret is out, and money is flowing out of active funds and into trackers. What could possibly stop Vanguard ruling the world? Even I did a victory lap to that end to mark the death of index fund pioneer Jack Bogle last month.

Yet the same technology that makes it so cheap for Vanguard to run its index funds (hint, it has more than five computers) could also be their undoing.

In an op-ed for Investment News, Joshua Levin argues that:

In the next few years, the entire rationale for investing via funds will dissolve.

Advances in technology have transformed industry cost structures. Absent the need to pool assets for volume discounts, advisers and relationship managers can skip the one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter vehicles.

Instead, financial advisers will use software to truly customize portfolios, resulting in a more engaged and loyal client base.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard such talk. For instance robo-adviser platforms are exploring similar tactics in the US to eke out additional returns from tax loss selling.

I have some sympathy for this fund-less vision – and certainly a lot of curiosity.

But it’s notable that the platform Levin works for is focused on socially responsible investing.

Nothing wrong with that. However as a guest post on the Epsilon Theory blog pointed out in an unrelated article this week, ethical investing is being seen by some active managers and advisors as a way to reinvent active management for a new breed of customer.

And a handy side effect is they can keep their jobs and higher fees:

This is an admittedly clever strategy. At least in theory, it moves the conversation away from fees and performance.

Now we’re talking values.

‘Cause if performance is pretty decent, and the fees are reasonably competitive, wouldn’t you rather have a portfolio aligned with your values? Isn’t the alignment of your investment capital and your values worth it?

Don’t you want to make a difference?

Watch this space. And don’t write history off too soon!

[continue reading…]

{ 33 comments }