≡ Menu

Weekend reading: Skip The Krypton Factor

Weekend reading: Skip The Krypton Factor post image

What caught my eye this week.

According to the reliably provocative Cullen Roche at Pragmatic Capital, factor picking is the new sector picking for flighty trader types.

And the problem with that, Roche writes, is:

“Predicting factors isn’t just identifying known sectors of the market. Factors are moving targets that require an even greater degree of asset forecasting than sectoral picking.”

Roche includes a new chart from Northern Trust [PDF], showing how factor returns have been all over the place from year to year:

Clearly active investors are going to have to be channeling Mystic Meg to successfully switch from factor to factor in advance, given that chart. The vast majority will surely fail.

What about passive investors?

My co-blogger has made the case for adding a factor tilt to your portfolio (he prefers the term return premiums) whereas Monevator contributor Lars Kroijer is skeptical, and suggests you stick to simple market-cap weighted indices.

Your choice. But if you do decide to add a factor tilt to your index portfolio, then I’d suggest it’s best to commit to your strategy for the long-term and rebalance as required.

Clearly some years are going to be bad years, even if overall the allocation pays off.

[continue reading…]

{ 7 comments }
Why I don’t use the FIRE acronym for financial freedom post image

I don’t remember anyone talking about FIRE when I started Monevator in 2007.

Of course there were personal finance writers, and books and blogs about growing your pension or leaving the rat race.

But FIRE wasn’t a word. Or rather it wasn’t something you wanted to jump into:

fire
ˈfʌɪə/
noun
  • a process in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke; combustion or burning.

At some point though, I looked up from counting my pennies and heard the youngsters using FIRE in a new context.

Rather than something you’d shout in a cinema in a parable about crowds and exits, FIRE now meant:

Financial Independence Retiring Early

Some even named their blogs after it: FIRE v London and The FIREStarter.

As acronyms go, we could do worse. FIRE has connotations of danger and emergency, which is how some people see their working life (or their bank balance).

But for me yoking the concept of financial independence together with retiring early is not ideal. I just don’t see them as uniquely wedded at the hip.

Also, I suspect it causes confusion about goals, and even cultivates outrage from those dreaded ‘retirement police’ who get angry if a FIRE-ee earns a few bob on the side.

Fighting FIRE with FIDO

Not working is just one more option that comes with being financially free – such as taking three months out to learn Japanese or going for ice cream in the park on a Monday or telling your boss to shove it thanks but no thanks, or seeking a new career in a different industry.

We might have acronyms for these other options, too:

FIBS – Financial Independence Blatant Salary

FITS – Financial Independence Taking Sabbatical

FISH – Financial Independence Semi Halfhearted

FIDO – Financial Independence Doing Overtime

FIZZ – Financial Independence Zig Zagging

FIGS – Financial Independence Great Sex

FIVE! – Financial Independence Very Exciting!

FIEF – Financial Independence Extreme Freedom

I could go on, and so could you because financial independence gives you more freedom to do what you want to do, not what an acronym implies you should.

You can go your own way

My beef with the FIRE terminology isn’t mere pedantry. I suspect it encourages tunnel thinking, perhaps to some users’ own detriment.

I often read blogs and comments from people saying they can’t stand their work at the office, for instance. They must escape it at all costs!

But actually, the cost as they see it is working 10-15 years or more in a job they hate, saving 60% of their salary, and becoming D.I.Y. Buddhists in order to be happy on the leftovers.

Perhaps that’s fine for you. I’m no big spender and I think many of the best things enjoyed by billionaires are within our reach, too.

But I do wonder if there’s not be a better solution than both being in the rat race and actively hating it for two decades?

A new career? Or a different way of working?

Similarly, I read articles by early retirees that urge others to do it – because, they argue, working at a modern office is soul-destroying.

I feel that way, too. But as I’ve written many times, you don’t have to give up work to avoid the office.

You do have to take risks in working for yourself. But if you’re self-motivated and vaguely smart you can probably get the same income with many of the benefits you’d seek in being retired early.

Your time is far more under your own control, for instance, you can create a work environment that’s right for you, you can go to the cinema when it’s empty, and you can spend your days in your underwear if that’s your thing (though probably best to skip the cinema).

Early retirement can bring its own problems, so it’s worth questioning whether it’s really the best solution to your current ones.

Then there are the people who love their jobs and even the office, but who are encouraged, perhaps subconsciously, to think they shouldn’t by the term FIRE – as well as by its camp followers.

Happy workers may want financial freedom for its own intrinsic rewards. But they find themselves on websites frequented by a subset of readers who harangue them and say they’re actually 9-5 Stepford Wives who are deluding themselves by thinking they enjoy work.

Finally, plenty of people who retire early do so because they’re ill or incapacitated, or because they were fired the old-fashioned way. Living on benefits isn’t what whoever coined the term FIRE had in mind.

I’m not disparaging early retirement as a goal, if it’s what you want. I can see the appeal!

I’m just saying it’s but one of many things you could aim for – yet it’s embedded in the FIRE mentality.

There’s always one more year

This all came to a head when UK personal finance blogger and friend of the Monevator website Retirement Investing Today (RIT) declared that he was going to spend that dreaded extra year at work.

This despite RIT having already hit his purported freedom number a year ago, and now being well over target.

“Foul!” cried his critics. “We want our metaphorical money back!”

I can see both sides.

The ‘one more year’ problem is well-known. My father kept adding years to his tally – despite being fed-up and ready to go – in pursuit of extra security. In the end he was only healthy in retirement for a couple of years, and dead in much less than a decade.

So yes, I get it.

RIT also said very publicly he was aiming to retire after hitting his magic number. This probably made him more accountable, and may have aided his motivation. So I can see why some may feel letdown by their hero.

It’s true too that there will always be reasons to delay – that’s why One More Year is a thing. RIT points to Brexit uncertainty, and I don’t blame him. But perhaps next year there will be a stock market crash or a run on the pound? And Brexit won’t be done with, anyway.

Set against that there’s this (lightly edited) response from RIT in the comments:

For me the bit I missed was the difference FI would make to my/family emotions/well-being.

Like a project I naively thought I’d make it to the FI line physically exhausted/relieved/etc and then chase RE (a new project) to decompress.

What I didn’t bank on was the euphoria that came from FI meaning I have a spring in my step making the next step not so much of a rush.

RIT goes on to explain how with financial independence achieved, work is more relaxed. He feels able to ignore emails out of hours, to delegate to his team, and so on.

I believe RIT has discovered that the Sword of Damocles hanging over your neck as an employee isn’t very threatening if it’s in a museum, and only over your neck because you’re taking a selfie.

FIRE in the whole

RIT says he’ll still be retiring in a year. I’ve no reason to doubt that or to wish him anything other than good luck.

Similarly, if the FIRE acronym describes your plans then by all means use it.

But let’s remember there are dozens of permutations of financial freedom. If you’ve clocked into an office every day and never thought about them, then in your desperation you might not know what you’re missing.

I’m pretty much financially independent these days, by my own terms. I once wanted to retire early. But I tried doing no work and discovered it wasn’t for me – or at least not yet.

My expectation now is I’ll earn at least some money for the next 30 years. I won’t state I’ve retired early and then find myself explaining why continuing to work is not the contradiction it clearly is. Rather, if the subject comes up I’ll focus on the financial independence part.

To me, independence is the bit that matters most. Retire early if you want to – absolutely. Keep working if you want to. Start a business if you want to, despite the risks.

Financial independence doesn’t solve all life’s problems – I’ve been stuck in a motivational rut for a year, for example – but it does make it easier to take a bird’s eye view of them.

Financial independence ultimately means the freedom to potentially do more of what you want to do – and to change your mind. When you get there you’ll probably find it’s intoxicating, at least for a while.

So good luck with your own journey to FIRE, FIDO, FIBS, or FIEF… or wherever else you’re headed!

{ 49 comments }

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q2 2017

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q2 2017 post image

Bad news: Our Slow & Steady portfolio is down for the first quarter in nearly two years.

AAAAARGH! MAYDAY! MAYDAY! Run for the exits! Shred the evidence! Hang a scapegoat!

Wait a sec. We’re only down 0.34%. Or £118, largely due to a minor dip in our bond positions. Emerging markets and global property have waned a bit, too.

Over the last year? Only gilts are flashing red at -1.27%. No asset class is down over three or five years. Year-to-date we’ve put on 3.74%.

Okay, sorry everybody. False alarm. Just a drill. Remember it’s important to stay on your toes people.

Here’s the portfolio latest in spreadsheet Dazzle-o-vision:

Slow & Steady portfolio tracker, Q2 2017

In the last Slow & Steady episode (we’re in negotiations with Netflix) we talked about the futility of tactical asset allocation – why trying to position your portfolio for supposedly ‘inevitable’ outcomes like a bond massacre or a US blow-up is liable to boomerang back in your face.

It’s easy to doubt or to be blown off course, but nothing dooms an investor like portfolio management by media headline.

I sometimes think I need to invent a sticky substance to hold myself on track. This would be an actual stick. It would end in a boxing glove and I’d beat myself over the head with it every time I’m tempted to mess with the plan. Written on the knuckles of the glove – like LOVE and HATE on the fists of a gentleman with mummy issues – would be the word CALM. This would remind me not to do nuthin’ stupid.

Similar results may be achieved with an Investor Policy Statement. Such a statement is simply a quick-reference gameplan written by a cooler you for reference by hot-under-the-collar you in times of doubt: “Oh yeah, I’ve got 30% bonds to stop myself panic-selling when the market’s in free-fall.”

Another source of timely wisdom without violence would be having the words of the investing greats flash up before your eyes (perhaps via augmented reality specs) every time your brain goes AWOL – or when you log into your broker’s account.

The financial writer Jason Zweig recently republished an interview with the late Peter Bernstein, one of the most revered figures in US finance. When after 50 years at the sharp end someone like Bernstein says he is still figuring things out, you know that reacting to stray headlines or negative numbers is no way to proceed.

Zweig’s interview reveals much about Bernstein’s strategic approach to dealing with uncertainty. Here are a few choice bits to succour any investor-nauts who find themselves drifting in space:

Understanding that we do not know the future is such a simple statement, but it’s so important.

Survival is the only road to riches. You should try to maximize return only if losses would not threaten your survival and if you have a compelling future need for the extra gains you might earn.

I view diversification not only as a survival strategy but as an aggressive strategy, because the next windfall might come from a surprising place. I want to make sure I’m exposed to it.

Somebody once said that if you’re comfortable with everything you own, you’re not diversified.

Wise words, more powerful than any boxing glove. (Just hope I can find them when I really need them.)

By the way, the Slow and Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. It was set up at the start of 2011 with £3,000 and an extra £900 is invested every quarter into a diversified set of index funds, heavily tilted towards equities. You can read the origin story and catch up on all the previous passive portfolio posts here.

Fiddly stuff

In more prosaic matters, BlackRock has rebranded its index funds as iShares.

That’s why our emerging markets and global property funds have a new label. It’s just a name change, nothing more. We haven’t done anything rash.

I should also mention the Slow & Steady portfolio has technically passed the threshold where it’s cheapest boarding is with a percentage fee broker. We are now roaming in flat-fee territory, where a fixed cost platform and fund dealing fees could lower costs overall.

Lloyds Bank Share Dealing offers an ISA account for a flat £40 per year. Fund trades are £1.50 a pop. Buying seven funds would cost us £10.50 a quarter or £42 a year. That’s £82 plus an estimated four sales a year to cover rebalancing trades, for £88 brokerage costs all-in. It sets up a photo finish with our current Charles Stanley residence. Lodgings with Mr Stanley notionally cost us £88.90 at 0.25% of the portfolio’s present value.

There’s 90p in it! What does the great god Optimal have to say about this?

Okay, I know we’re meant to snuff costs like Jeff Bezos but I’m not filling in a form for 90p. Sure, the value of our portfolio will probably rise further but then Charles Stanley charges a £10 exit fee per holding. (We wouldn’t have this problem at Cavendish Online, incidentally). What’s more, Lloyds doesn’t list our Vanguard Small Cap or Gilt funds.

So like a koala clapped out after a eucalyptus leaf and a scratch, let’s put the action on ice.

New transactions

Every quarter we pin another £900 on to the market’s wheel of fortune. Our cash is divided between our seven funds according to our asset allocation strategy.

We use Larry Swedroe’s 5/25 rule to trigger rebalancing moves, but all’s quiet this quarter. We’re just topping up with new money as follows:

UK equity

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

Fund identifier: GB00B3X7QG63

New purchase: £54

Buy 0.284 units @ £190.27

Target allocation: 6%

Developed world ex-UK equities

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

Fund identifier: GB00B59G4Q73

New purchase: £342

Buy 1.105 units @ £309.42

Target allocation: 38%

Global small cap equities

Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund – OCF 0.38%

Fund identifier: IE00B3X1NT05

New purchase: £63

Buy 0.240 units @ £262.78

Target allocation: 7%

Emerging market equities

iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.24%

Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £90

Buy 61.350 units @ £1.47

Target allocation: 10%

Global property

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

Fund identifier: GB00B5BFJG71

New purchase: £63

Buy 32.291 units @ £1.95

Target allocation: 7%

UK gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.15%

Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

New purchase: £234

Buy 1.461 units @ £160.21

Target allocation: 26%

UK index-linked gilts

Vanguard UK Inflation-Linked Gilt Index Fund – OCF 0.15%

Fund identifier: GB00B45Q9038

New purchase: £54

Buy 0.294 units @ £183.78

Target allocation: 6%

New investment = £900

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.25% per year.

This model portfolio is notionally held with Charles Stanley Direct. You can use that company’s monthly investment option to invest from £50 per fund. Just cancel the option after you’ve traded if you don’t want to make the same investment next month.

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.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.17%

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

{ 26 comments }
Weekend reading: She thinks they doth protest too much post image

What caught my eye this week.

Merryn Somerset-Webb was on good form this week writing about the FCA’s report into the asset management industry. Opining in the Financial Times [search result], Merryn laments all the talk in the FCA report of more, well, talk (or as the author’s call it, consultation).

Everyone’s favourite plummy personal finance punk has little truck for the industry’s excuses. For example, she writes:

My favourite part comes on page 84, where the FCA reports on conversations with stakeholders about the all-in fee. It turns out that several respondents were concerned about the “practical complexities” of an all-in fee. It’ll be hard to figure out transaction costs, they said. After all, trading costs “cannot be predicted accurately ahead of time”.

This is absolutely killing. A group of people who insist that it makes sense for us to pay them outrageously high annual fees on the basis that they are so good at complex forecasting — that they can look at, say, the 2,000 stocks listed in the UK and forecast which of them will do better than the others based on a pile of mostly made up spreadsheets — reckon there are insurmountable “complexities” in extrapolating what their own trading costs will be over a 12-month period from decades of their own data.

Hysterical.

Well put.

I’m a little weary of being indignant on behalf of investors who to often seem unable to do even an hour’s homework of their own, but Somerset-Webb is made of more noble stuff.

Keep fighting, she says in her article. There is more work to be done!

[continue reading…]

{ 28 comments }