≡ Menu

Is London commercial property an opportunity?

London property under construction, circa 2011

For various reasons, I don’t write much about my active investing these days on Monevator.

One reason is we’ve found our niche explaining why you should ignore 90% of what’s written about investing in the popular press and instead invest passively.

In that light it’s no fun having to re-explain my antics to people who read Monevator for the passive material and who – understandably – get perplexed by what I’m up to.

(This series is my best explanation if you’re interested.)

The schism is made worse by my passively pure co-blogger The Accumulator still being mainly away writing the mythical Monevator book.

We used to do passive posts Tuesday, active Thursday, and the free-for-all links on Saturday.

But with that routine constipated due to a lack of Accumulated fibre, there seems to be even more upset and indigestion when I go off-piste.

Golden years

But there’s another big reason why I’m not writing so much about my active ideas at the moment.

And that is I haven’t got so many convincing active ideas!

There’s a passage in The Snowball, Alice Schroeder’s biography of Warren Buffett, where she talks about how in the 1950s Buffett kept finding “golden apples” lying around on the floor – and he could barely believe they hadn’t been picked up.

Hindsight is wonderful – and I know my stock picks didn’t always feel like no-brainers at the time – but still, that’s a little like how I felt between 2009 (when I was pretty sure the market was cheap) and 2013 (by when most things had been re-rated).

For instance, consider UK commercial property REITs, which appeared a good bet to me in the aftermath of the credit crisis.

As late as December 2011 I was able to write that:

If you believe the pessimism about Europe and the global economy is overdone, then some REITs offer good yields as well as seemingly undervalued assets for you to snap up.

In that article I suggested diving deeper into the small cap end of the property market, highlighting six companies I thought looked interesting.

Here’s how their share prices did between then and now:

Company Gain
Daejan 115%
J Smart 31%
McKay Securities 75%
Mountview Estates 163%
Mucklow Group 73%
Panther Securities 1%
Average 77%
FTSE All-Share 31%

Source: Google Finance / Yahoo Finance

Golden apples, alright.

I don’t have total return data to hand, unfortunately, but taking into account dividends the outperformance of these six shares versus the wider UK market would be even better – and income is often the major attraction of holding commercial property.

Of course I owned a lot more in my portfolio than just these winners. In fact at the time of that article from memory I held precisely none of them, though I was buying various UK commercial property firms on and off throughout the period.

But that isn’t my point here. I’m simply highlighting that bargains could indeed be found strewn about a few years ago, at least the way things turned out. (“Things” including no UK recession or Eurozone implosion, and continued easy money from the Central Banks).

Brexit bargains

It’s been tougher sledding recently. Aside from the odd bit of “plunging” during market sell-offs, I’ve been mainly hunting around in commodities and energy companies, emerging markets, and financials over the past 12-18 months.

These have been anything but easy buys, and not always good ones.

I’ve repeatedly traded around my UK and US bank positions as they’ve waxed and waned, for instance, and while emerging markets have come good, I was optimistic too early. Energy has been strong in 2016, but 2015 was carnage.

However this year did provide one great buying opportunity – at least in retrospect.

The market was chaotic in the hours and days that followed the Leave win in the EU Referendum, as terrified investors raced to dump their UK shares.

I should know, because as an avowed Brexit-phobe I was among the dumpers.

In the weeks afterwards I felt I’d done okay getting through Brexit intact, especially considering how surprised I was by the result. I saw my portfolio rally like everyone else, and I tried to forget about the two or three holdings I’d sold at steep discount in the aftermath.

However it’s become obvious that as an active investor I left money on the table.

I’m not even talking about the crazy buys you could make the morning after the vote before.

Yes, in theory you could buy big UK banks at 20-30% or more down, but liquidity was non-existent. You had to buy blind, and you could only guess at what we now know – that a systemic crisis was not underway.

I’m thinking more about the good companies that were marked down in the sell-off and took some weeks to recover, even as the smoke cleared.

I picked up a couple of things, but overall I was too timid (partly, no doubt, because of my feelings about Brexit, even as Britain’s post-vote resilience has confounded me).

Six of the best

There does remain one corner of the market that I feel is still suffering from a Brexit hangover, however. While it might not be exactly strewn with golden apples, I think it’s probably not stuffed with rotten ones, either.

To go full circle, that corner is commercial property – specifically the big UK real estate investment trusts (REITs).

The REITs fell in the wake of Brexit and the coincident closure of several property funds, and they have not yet fully recovered.

The following table shows how the six largest such REITs are priced relative to their recent-ish peaks, and also their price-to-book value (a measure of the premium or discount of their price compared to the value of the assets on their books).

Company Decline from
12-month peak
Price-to-book
ratio
Land Securities -23% 0.7
British Land -28% 0.7
Hammerson -11% 0.8
Segro -2% 0.96
Intu Properties -18% 0.8
Shaftesbury -2% 1.15

Source: Google Finance and Company Refs

Well, that’s an interesting table, isn’t it?

The first thing I’d say is that dramatic as some of these falls are, prices have bounced since the bottom of the Brexit sell-off.

Shaftesbury fell 14% the day after the EU Referendum, for example, to hit 822p. It’s since risen 18%. And while British Land is still dramatically below its highs, it got as low 545p in the wake of Brexit, compared to today’s 632p.

So the panic seems to be wrung out, even if some of these shares are still languishing.

The more interesting column for me though is the price-to-book ratio.

In the case of British Land, for example, it most recently declared its net asset value per share to be 919p as of the end of March 2016.

In theory then, if you buy British Land shares today for 631p, you’re getting a 30% discount to their underlying value.

Bargain!

Well maybe – but things are obviously not quite so simple.

Why the discounts?

There are many reasons why REITs might trade at a discount to their net asset value (that is, NAV or book value):

1) NAV too high: Investors might not trust the NAV, either because they suspect it was over-stated at the time the accounts were filed, or because they think that underlying prices (buildings, in the case of REITs) have fallen since then.

2) NAV will fall: Investors may fear that prices are going to fall in the future, and so try to factor that into their purchase price now.

3) Supply and demand: Perhaps the typical investor believes the NAV is just dandy and reflects reality, but there simply aren’t enough buyers around compared to people selling for whatever reason to hold up prices.

4) Dividend yields can be a factor. If alternative yields are more attractive, dividend-minded investors may not buy REITs until the yield becomes competitive, which could cause their share price fall to increase the yield, even if the underlying NAV is unchanged.

5) General uncertainty: If you’re less sure about the future of the economy or the markets, you’ll typically demand a bigger discount. This is especially true in the case of REITs, where the underlying holdings (buildings!) can take months or years to sell, and where some of the NAV may include developments that haven’t yet been built or sold.

All these factor interrelate, of course. For instance it’s unlikely that investors will be demanding steeper discounts to NAVs and higher yields without something similar going on in the real-world market for physical property.

I should mention here that commercial property has its own sub-language, especially in the US, which talks about ‘cap rates’ and so on. At the end of the day though the metrics of investing are the same.

There a few fundamentals worth keeping in mind with commercial property, however:

  • It is illiquid. You know how it can take an age and a small fortune to sell your house? Same here.
  • Rents can be illiquid, too, for want of a better word. Rent reviews may be upwards only, for instance, so tenants cannot theoretically negotiate discounts. But they can go bust, so… Also at times of high inflation, rents may not keep pace (which can be a bit of a knock on commercial property’s inflation-fighting credentials in the short-term).
  • Commercial property is fueled by debt, just like manure grows crops.
  • The front line of the sector is speculative. Combined with all that debt, this means commercial property goes through cycles of booms and busts, especially in big cities.

I’ve written more about commercial property if you’re interested.

Opportunity knockers

So are these big REITs on a discount screaming buys?

Who knows – but I do think they’re worth a second look.

True, when you see discounts of 30% or more to book value, you might think the market knows something certain about their underlying NAV.

And there are dark clouds around, for sure. Negative voices were calling the top of the UK commercial property market even before Brexit threatened to send tens of thousands of bankers and related office jobs overseas.

However there’s not much sign so far that property prices have slumped 30%, or anything like it. In fact we’re only a few percent down since Brexit, and the pace of decline even in the capital is slowing.

The take-up of office space in London bounced back relatively quickly after Brexit, too.

Also, if you believe that the big discounts to NAV reflect the market cunningly sniffing out an imminent London property crash, then you have to square London-centric Shaftesbury trading near NAV with, say, Land Securities trading at 0.7x.

Their portfolios are not exactly the same, sure. But they share enough in common that the idea one could be slammed while the other sales through unmolested seems fanciful.

The big REITs are in general not highly-geared, either – certainly they’re not overloaded with debt like they were back in 2007 ahead of the last downturn.

This all raises the possibility that there’s a dislocation here in terms of price and value.

Popularity contest

Price-to-book ratios do definitely swing about in this sector.

In the two years between spring 2013 and spring 2015, for instance, British Land mainly traded at a premium to book value. (i.e. The price to book ratio was over 1x.)

Premiums may be justified if investors have correctly anticipated further gains to come – perhaps because the future value of development projects are modestly carried on the books, or because underlying prices for offices or shops are rising faster than company accountants can keep up.

But fluctuating ratios just as often reflect changing sentiment, too.

I can’t help noticing that the three companies with the largest discounts in my table are the three largest UK REITs. This trio alone comprises about 35% of the iShares UK Property ETF.

I wonder if they’ve been sold off more harshly – or have taken longer to recover – precisely because they’re so big and relatively liquid?

I read somewhere that open-ended commercial property funds were holding REITs in lieu of cash, and selling them when investors began redeeming their funds after the Brexit vote. Perhaps that’s piled on the pressure?

Because I remain relatively unconvinced about the UK and London’s medium-term prospects (I mean compared to the more positive view I had of the business-as-usual scenario rejected by voters in June) it’s hard for me to get super-excited about this apparent opportunity.

However I’ve had a nibble of Land Securities and British Land, among the big REITs I’ve mentioned today, and I may well buy more.

Time will tell if there’s a worm in these apples!

As mentioned I own shares in Land Securities and British Land, so who knows what biases are influencing my thinking. As always this piece is NOT a recommendation that you or anyone else should buy any shares mentioned. You must do your own research, and make your own decisions. Good luck. 🙂

{ 23 comments }

Rebalance with new contributions to save on grief and cost

Investors with relatively small portfolios should always rebalance with new contributions where possible to avoid having their wealth whittled away by trading costs.

Most rebalancing advice suggests:

  1. Sell out-performing assets.
  2. Sink the proceeds into under-performers.

But this can mean paying a double-dose of broker’s dealing fees: once to sell and once to buy for every pair of assets you need to rebalance.

And while you can buy for £1.50 per trade using regular purchase schemes, you’ll pay at least £5 to £10 to sell, if you’re dealing in ETFs, shares, investment trusts, or funds where your platform charges trading fees. (See our broker comparison table for the cheapest options).

Rebalancing with new contributions cuts out the selling costs at a stroke.

Using this technique, the lion’s share of new contributions are funneled directly into under-performers to bring them into line with your desired asset allocation.

Use new cash to grow the assets that are underweight.

How to rebalance with new contributions

New contributions can be any combination of:

  • New cash
  • Dividend income
  • Interest income

Whenever you inject new money, calculate the following:

  1. Add up the total worth of your portfolio before any purchases.
  2. Add that figure to the cash value of your new contribution. This gives you the portfolio’s new total value after your imminent purchases.
  3. Recall your target asset allocation percentages.
  4. Calculate the cash value of each asset at its target percentage of your portfolio’s new total.
  5. The difference between the current value of the asset and its new value = the amount of new contribution to put into that particular asset.

A very simple example

Current worth of the KISS portfolio = £10,000

New contribution = £5,000

New total value of portfolio = £15,000

Desired asset allocation (%) = 60% equity, 40% bonds

Desired asset allocation of £15K portfolio (£) = £9K equity, £6K bonds

Current asset allocation (£) = £7K equity, £3K bonds

Subtract current value from desired value = £2K equity, £3K bonds

So our £5K new contribution neatly rebalances the KISS portfolio back to a 60:40 equity/bond allocation if we buy £2K in equity and £3K in bonds.

If the new/desired value of the asset was a minus number then your existing allocation is so out of whack that even the new contribution can’t get you back on track. You need to sell an amount of the bloated asset equal to the minus number to rebalance.

Do all that using the power of your brain, or else use this excellent rebalancing spreadsheet from Canadian Couch Potato.

Never perfectly rebalanced

Of course, you don’t have to rebalance every time you drip feed in new contributions.

I personally calendar rebalance once a year. But because I contribute monthly – buying one or two funds a month – my ideal asset allocation is only ever a target I work towards with new cash.

I work out how much I think I’ll invest in the 12 months ahead, and use that amount plus my existing portfolio’s value on rebalancing day to calculate how much I should feed into each asset over the course of the year.

In reality my portfolio is unlikely ever to be rebalanced perfectly again, except by utter fluke.

Rebalancing to a range gives you even greater leeway to adjust asset allocations for less cost.

You can rebalance your portfolio with abandon if you’re purely invested in funds that avoid dealer’s fees, such as the trackers used in Monevator’s Slow and Steady model portfolio. However, the evidence suggests there’s normally no need to rebalance more than once a year and doing it with new contributions will certainly save you time and hassle.

Take it steady,
The Accumulator

{ 25 comments }

Weekend reading: The private banks doing God’s work

Weekend Reading logo

Good reads from around the Web.

I like to see the rich being profligate with their money. That’s because I’m pretty worried about a structural shift to increasing inequality in the West, due to everything from technology and network effects to taxation, globalization, and even shifting social mores.

The relentless troops of Trustafarians launching Fintech start-ups in Silicon Roundabout rather than blowing their inheritances in fleshpots and car dealerships dismays me. I want to hear silk slippers coming down the stairs and wooden shoes coming up – not the frugal rich squatting on their gold and shopping for cheap brogues in TK Maxx.

And that’s doubly true of investment fees.

It dismays me when the striving middle-classes pay a financial services firm the equivalent of multiple Porsches through high fees on their relatively life savings – let alone when a blood-sucking IFA tries to siphon as much as 7% from a shop clerk trying to do the right thing with her modest means.

But when the ultra-wealthy spend 2-and-20% a year on their lackluster hedge funds? Mini fist pump! It’s a hedge fund’s most socially useful function.

The notion of the Trumps of this world turning to index funds fills me with dread.

Eat the rich

Of course, a good few of you are pretty wealthy. Heck, I’m getting there myself, in the grand scheme of things.

And like you, I have no intention of volunteering any more of my own resources to supporting the financial services community than I need to.

It’s a classic tragedy of the commons, albeit in this instance the commons are rather neatly manicured. We want the wealthy to waste their money. But not if we get wealthy!

The good news is that while awareness about high costs is rising – and there are signs that hedge fund fees are falling – there remains plenty of ways in which the most well-off can still be relieved of their Gini coefficient-skewing burden.

And even if you’re rich and financially sophisticated, you might not know it’s happening.

In his wonderful post this week about the dangers of private banking, FireVLondon admits that:

…with the recent FT article about fund managers making 2.5% per year on typical portfolios, I wondered, ‘Who are the idiots who are paying 2.5% per year?’

And this got me looking more carefully at my own situation.

Lo and behold, my ‘1%’ figure turns out to drastically underestimate the fees I’m paying.

I discovered I myself am one of the idiots.

The true figure I am paying my private bank, for a ‘discretionary portfolio’ they manage for me, is a gob-smacking 2.04%.  This probably excludes a few trading fees within some of the funds that I can’t cleanly see.

How do I get from ‘1% of money managed’ to ‘2.04%’?

Only by being an idiot.

Now anyone who has read his blog knows FireVLondon is no numpty. The private banking vampire squid he has uncovered is only suckered onto a tiny part of his portfolio. As he tells it, even then it’s only there for scientific purposes. (He wants it as a benchmark).

But just think how much richer the richer would be if they collectively woke up to the larceny taking place under the auspices of wealth management?

The old aristocracy noticed if a peasant was making off with a goose under his overcoat every second Saturday.

Let’s hope that financial obfuscation continues to hinder the super-wealthy in spotting the modern equivalent.

[continue reading…]

{ 28 comments }

Is your cash safe in the bank?

Photo of Lars Kroijer

This article about cash is by former hedge fund manager turned author Lars Kroijer, an occasional contributor to Monevator. He also wrote Investing Demystified.

Although interest rates are very low, many investors still hold large deposits in cash at their financial institutions.

I would caution against blindly doing this.

Often such savers do not consider credit risk – that is, the risk that for some reason they won’t get back all the money they deposited.

About 120 countries in the world have a system whereby the state (or a body legislated by the state) guarantees deposits with financial institutions up to a certain amount in cases of default.

While this varies by country, it means for example that the first £85,000 (in the UK), $250,000 (in the US), and €100,000 (in many EU countries) of deposits with a bank is guaranteed.

These guarantees are in place to lend confidence to the financial system and so avoid runs on the banks.

Without a bank guarantee, we ordinary cash savers would be general creditors to the bank. We would therefore have to gauge bank credit risk, which is something most depositors are not equipped to do.

Of course, if you have your money with a bank deemed ‘too big to fail’, then the bank won’t fail without the government also failing. That may offer some additional comfort.

Financial Services Compensation Scheme: Diversify your exposure

If you hold cash deposits with one or more financial institutions in excess of the deposit insurance limit, then you become a general creditor of that institution in the event that it fails.

For instance, if you have £200,000 in deposits with a bank and the credit insurance is only for £85,000, then the last £115,000 is not covered.

It’s important to note that in some jurisdictions, the credit insurance offered such guarantees are on a per institution basis.

For example, the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is a statutory compensation scheme for customers of FCA ((Financial Conduct Authority)) and PRA ((Prudential Regulation Authority)) authorised firms. The FSCS is funded by levies raised from such firms. Under the FSCS your cash deposits are protected to the tune of £85,000 ((The FSCS also provides £1 million protection for temporarily high balances held within your bank, building society or credit union. This is to facilitate rare large-sum transactions such as house sales and purchases.)) per person, per authorised institution.

This means that if you spread £200,000 in cash over four wholly separately FCA licensed firms with £50,000 in each then you would be fully covered for each of them, albeit at the cost of an administrative headache.

Do check if this applies in your country before opening several accounts.

What is an FCA Authorised Institution? Note that the £85,000 FSCS compensation limit does not apply to any particular bank, let alone to multiple accounts you may have with the same bank. Rather, it is applied per FCA registration licence number. This is important because banks you perhaps do not realise have anything to do with each other may in fact be owned and operating under the same licence (e.g. Barclays and The Woolwich) while other banks that you know are connected by ownership may actually operate under distinct licences (e.g. Lloyds Bank and Halifax). See Money.co.uk for a list of the different UK firms and the single licences under which they operate.

Bad things can happen

Just before the 2008 crash, a good friend of mine sold his successful IT business for a very large cash amount.

My friend was never really that interested in finance, and he left the money in an account with his financial institution while he took some time off.

This was a large, double-digit, multi-million-dollar amount and the financial institution was the insurance company AIG. He got concerned when one morning he read in the Financial Times about all the issues with AIG and how it could potentially go bust.

When my friend contacted AIG there was initially some confusion about the kind of account he held, and for a while he thought his money with AIG was going to be lost into the general abyss of a spectacular financial collapse.

In the end, he along with all the other creditors of AIG was returned his money. But the experience certainly put the statement that an investment is ‘as good as money in the bank’ into perspective.

On a much smaller scale, I had some cash in a lesser-known bank in excess of that country’s government credit guarantee.

I had agreed to put most of the money on time deposits where I would get a slightly higher interest rate of 2.5%.

Coincidentally, I discovered that the bank’s bonds were trading in the market at a yield of approximately 5% a year.

In simple terms, the market was telling me that I was taking a credit risk on the non-government guaranteed portion of my deposit that the market estimated at 5% a year, but I was getting paid 2.5% for it.

Not a great idea!

Who backs the deposit insurance?

A deposit insurance scheme is only as good as the institution that has granted this guarantee.

If you were holding cash with a Greek bank and relied on the deposit insurance protection from the Greek government, you would clearly not be as secure as with the same guarantee from the German government.

In the 2013 bailout of Cyprus, the restructuring that was initially suggested involved depositors both above and below the guaranteed amount taking a cut in their deposits (although in the end, only larger depositors had part of their holdings confiscated).

This suggests that bank depositors in that country were indirectly exposed to the creditworthiness of that government, in addition to the creditworthiness of the bank holding their money.

Local banks fare horribly if the government defaults. The banks are tied strongly to the local economy, which is suffering. On top of facing a poor economic climate, the banks will have lost a lot on their holding of government bonds.

The correlation between the troubles of your government and your bank is thus very high – and the protection you were hoping for may be absent as a result.

This is bad news, particularly as your bank and government default may well happen at the same time as other things in your life are also being negatively affected by the same economic factors: you may have lost your job, your house may decline in value, and so on.

It is exactly for these circumstances that you want the diversification of investments and assets provided by the sort of well-diversified portfolio I’ve previously advocated.

Bonds may be better

One way to address the potential lack of security of cash in a bank is to buy securities like AAA/AA government bonds, or other investment securities that closely resemble cash such as money market funds.

Importantly, securities like these still belong to you even in the case of a bank default. While the process of moving that security to another financial institution could be cumbersome, you are no longer a creditor to a failed bank, which gives you far greater security in a calamity.

Even so, while investments like stocks and bonds held in custody at a bank continue belong to you if the bank goes bust, you should still be careful about holding too many assets at risky banks.

Once an institution defaults, the process of finding out exactly who owns what can take time. There have even been cases where the segregation between client assets and bank assets was less firm than it legally should be. That will render it even harder to regain the investments that are legitimately yours – in the face of bank creditors claiming that the same assets belong to them.

What’s more, in a future bailout like the ones we have seen in Southern Europe it may be that not only your cash is confiscated, but that institutions find a way to take some of your securities as well.

It’s all a mess worth avoiding, so unless there is a compelling reason not to do so I would encourage you to only place your cash and investment assets with very credible banks.

You should also read up on investor compensation schemes in your country. They may – as is the case in the UK – have different rules and limits compared to the cash guarantees we’ve been discussing in this article.

Don’t bank on Bitcoin! Crypto currencies like Bitcoin offer an interesting but highly volatile alternative to cash in the bank. But please consider that this is almost by definition an unregulated asset class, and you are offered little protection against fraud or losses. That said, I would not be surprised to see crypto currencies go up in value during general turmoil or panic. I also expect them to generally become more common. So I will follow progress with great interest, perhaps especially as a transactional tool. However I wouldn’t consider Bitcoin any sort of straight substitute for cash.

Chasing yield

Particularly before the upheavals of 2008, some lesser-known banks offered very generous interest rates on deposits compared to the more conservative traditional banks. (The latter turned out to not be so conservative either, but that’s another story).

In the UK, the Icelandic banks in particular were guilty of this, but there were many others.

The interest rate differential provided the potential for profits from the perspective of the depositor – at the expense of the soundness of the banking system.

If the depositor guarantee was indeed iron clad – that is, the government would not try to get out of the depositor guarantee under any circumstances – then depositors were incentivised to withdraw cash deposits from the more conservative High Street banks in order to deposit the money with the banks that offered higher deposit interest rates.

If the gun-slinging bank later went bust (just as some did) the government would ensure the depositor would not suffer. And if the gun-slinging bank stayed in business, the depositor would benefit from higher rates.

A couple of years ago I was approached by someone who was planning to start a bank. His pitch did not involve great new markets or interesting products, but rather what he called an ‘arbitrage’ on the credit insurance of the government.

His arbitrage involved offering customers extremely high deposit rates, but only up to the amount of the government deposit insurance. He would thus attract sizeable deposits. He planned to then use the deposits to offer loans to renewable energy investments that also had government guaranteed rates of return, while capturing a spread for the bank (and himself presumably) in the middle.

The would-be banker claimed that his scheme was entirely legal and within banking regulations. I suggested he double-check this.

I don’t know if this man was able to start his bank, but it gives a good picture of the kind of thinking that can drive some of the more gung-ho banks out there.

It also shows how important it is for governments to get bank regulation right in the face of the many people who constantly try to game the system. This is not an easy task.

Questions for cash

I feel like a pessimist in writing about the dangers of cash deposits. It is certainly the case that in more than 99% of cases the thought behind the term ‘safe as money in the bank’ or ‘cash is king’ is exactly right – that the cash is entirely safe.

My logic is based more on how things fit together, and in trying to avoid several bad things happening at the same time.

If you consider the unlikely scenario of the bank where you hold most of your deposits going out of business, that scenario probably involves a lot of things that are also not good for your investing life happening at the same time.

Regardless of what your risk profile is as an investor, you should always be sure that you get properly compensated for the risks you are taking.

Always think about what happens in a calamity. The case of a bank default is no different.

Summary

  • Cash deposits are not entirely without risk. Don’t hold cash in excess of that which is guaranteed by the government at one bank, and do worry about which government has issued the deposit insurance on your cash.
  • By holding investment securities like government bonds instead of cash with a financial institution, you could be in better situation to recover these securities in the event of a bank failure.

Lars Kroijer’s book Investing Demystified is available from Amazon. He is donating all his profits from his book to medical research. He also wrote Confessions of a Hedge Fund Manager.

{ 20 comments }