≡ Menu

How to invest for children

I don’t have kids myself but I’ve noticed that some people do, and even more people are thinking of getting some. The masochists.

I’ve also noticed that people like their kids. A lot. They want to protect them from future harm.

And what better way to do that than to invest on their behalf from the moment the ink dries on the birth certificate?

Hey, this is a site about investing – this is how we show the love!

Besides, even I have two wonderful nieces, and I recently scoured the market to find the best Junior ISA (JISA) deal for them.

Setting pressie money to work towards their future seems like a much better gift than adding to the mound of colourful plastic tat that already surrounds them. More toys isn’t what they need.

Rather, a dollop of assets that can compound for decades and buffer them against a retreating State and the competing future pressures of university fees, mortgages, and pension contributions is giving them something they will be thankful for – even though I might not immediately see a smile on their little faces.

The question is how to invest for children to deliver the biggest bang for your bucks?

Time and compound interest can make the most of your child's investments

Asset allocation

A friend of mine invested in a cautious fund for their newborn because an IFA explained that certain investments are risky while others are as gentle as Bagpuss. The last thing my friend wanted to do was risk her child’s future on a moonshot, so she went cautious: 40% equities, 60% bonds.

That sounds sensible, but it’s equities that typically drive returns, not bonds. Over multiple decades, portfolios that favour equities are most likely to deliver stronger results.

UK data is hard to come by, but in the US equities have beaten bonds 95% of the time over 20 year periods, and 99% of the time over 30 years.

The little darlings can afford to play a waiting game. Their risk tolerance is extremely high because you’re going to be providing life’s essentials for at least the first 20 years (and for much if not all of that time they won’t know or care about the stock market, anyway).

They’ll then enter the labour force and have decades of earnings ahead of them.

In other words, they are rich in human capital. They’ve got plenty of time to ride out a poor run for equities and to wait for them to come good.

For my nieces, I’ve gone for a 100% equity allocation. The expected returns are higher and they can ignore the volatility.

Still you could sensibly decide that history doesn’t guarantee the future and you’d rather the portfolio was better diversified with, say, a 20% allocation to bonds.

Also, if your chosen investment option means that your child will take over the account in 18 years or thereabouts, then you could  gradually de-risk it if you start from a very adventurous equity position.

The simplest, cheapest option is to use a low cost, global passive vehicle like one of Vanguard’s LifeStrategy funds.

Such a fund is hugely diversified across global markets, is low maintenance, and automatically rebalances between asset classes.

Platform

You can manage the child’s investment yourself using a DIY online investing platform. Our broker comparison table will guide you through the options.

The cheapest brokers for adults are worth looking at for the best kids’ deals, too.

  • If you plan to make regular contributions, say monthly, and the fund is likely to remain below £32,000 for a long time, then look at Cavendish Online or Charles Stanley Direct.
  • If you’re contributing regularly but operating above the £32,000 threshold, then check out iWeb and Interactive Investor.

It’s all about keeping your costs low so that your child’s fund benefits, as opposed to lining the pockets of the finance industry. A few quick calculations will show you why.

Now let’s look at how to invest for children in the most appropriate investing vehicles available.

Junior ISA (JISA)

You can contribute up to £9,000 annually on behalf of your child into a JISA.

This works very much like an adult ISA:

  • Available in cash and stocks and shares flavours.
  • Contributions grow free from income tax and capital gains tax.

The differences are:

  • Mini-you can withdraw the money on their 18th birthday.
  • If the JISA survives that existential threat, then it metamorphoses into an adult ISA.
  • 16-17 year-old Young Apprentice types can take over the management of their JISA and put up to £20,000 of their own money into it, on top of your piffling four grand.
  • A parent or guardian opens the account, but the child owns the money.

Children born after 3 January 2011 or those aged under 18 and without a Child Trust Fund (CTF) can have a Junior ISA.

From April 2015, kiddiewinks who have a CTF can transfer it into a JISA.

CTFs are the forerunners of JISAs and are similar in the way that the Teletubbies aren’t a million miles from In The Night Garden.

The klaxon-blaring feature of both JISAs and CTFs is that your offspring can do whatever they like with the money from the age of 18.

If you’re at all worried that you may be creating the mother of all booze funds then you have some longer-term options for retaining control.

Your ISA

With today’s more generous allowances, there might be enough room in your ISA to tuck away a fund or a portion of one for the little guys.

The tax breaks remain the same but the assets are under your command. You can decide when to pay out the proceeds, or use them to maintain discipline, emotional blackmail – whatever.

The downside is that the money will lose its tax shielding once it leaves your ISA. You may also need to make legal provision to ensure the money is used as you intended in the event of death or divorce.

Child pensions

This one always makes me chuckle because it seems so absurd. Sadly though, today’s bonny babies will one day be washed-up wrinklies wise old birds.

Your children will, in all likelihood, need a retirement plan. And given our looming pension crises, worsening demographics, and the hard-wired inability to think ahead, you can scarcely choose a wiser gift than planting an acorn which will grow into a sturdy oak of a pension many years hence.

Even today, you can’t access your pension until age 55. By the time a newborn grows up the minimum age for withdrawal will probably be sixty-something.

Most likely they’ll have calmed down by then.

Chances are they’ll be toasting your 90th birthday and thanking you for the foresight that enabled them to benefit from the amazing potential of six decades of compounding equity returns.

That’s the vision, anyway. The concrete steps:

  • Open a stakeholder pension or Child SIPP.
  • Every £80 you put in is topped up to £100 by the Government’s 20% tax relief.
  • Put in £2,880 per year to benefit from max tax relief and to hit the gross annual investment limit of £3,600.
  • Anyone can contribute up to the £2,880 net maximum.

Take a look at Cavendish Online and Best Invest as platforms.

Put in £2,880 per year for the first 18 years, leave to compound until age 65 (assuming a 5% real return and 20% tax relief), and junior will be a millionaire.

Of course a million pounds won’t be worth a million by then but every little helps.

Junior investment accounts

A junior investment account is a taxable account that may be intended for a child but is held in your name.

In other words, you retain control for as long you like.

The tax situation is odd:

  • If one parent contributes then the account is taxed on interest and dividends earned above £100 per year at that parent’s tax rate.
  • If both parent’s contribute then the account can earn £200 income before being taxed at the highest earner’s rate.
  • So if the contributors fall into the 20% income tax bracket then there won’t be any deduction from dividends because the requisite amount is already sheared off.
  • Contributions from anyone else – including grandparents and other relatives – are not subject to the above restrictions.

In the latter instance, it’s the bairn’s tax rate that counts. They have a £12,500 personal allowance, like anyone else, so the tax bill is likely to be light unless you’ve sired a young Rockefeller.

Similarly, baby’s capital gains allowance of £12,300 per year should be enough to cope with most growth scenarios – and if it isn’t then they’re laughing anyway.

You could place this type of account or other assets into a trust. I’m not going to get into that subject here, but HMRC have kindly rustled up some guidance for beginners.

Inheritance tax and gifting

Reducing inheritance tax (IHT) is a strong motive to sock away some money for the next generation sooner rather than later.

You can give away annually:

  • Up to £3,000, known as the annual gift exemption (Plus a roll over from the previous year if you didn’t bestow the full amount).
  • Up to £250 as a small gift to any number of people who didn’t benefit from your £3,000 giveaway. If you give somebody more than £250 then the exemption is lost from their whole gift.
  • You can make IHT exempt regular payments (e.g. monthly savings contributions, birthdays, Christmas) as long as you have enough income left over to maintain your normal lifestyle. Sounds woolly? Very, but you can read more about it over on HMRC’s IHT pages.
  • Any giveaways beyond the above will avoid inheritance tax if you manage to hang on for seven years after the gift date. Die before then though and, quite apart from upsetting everyone, you’ll potentially land them with an IHT tax bill. Selfish.

NS&I Children’s Bonds and Friendly Societies

If that all sounds a bit racy then you can invest tax-free in some cuddly Children’s Bonds from the Treasury backed NS&I.

  • This is a fixed interest 5-year savings bond.
  • Parents, guardians, grandparents and even great-grand parents can pitch in.
  • You can contribute £25 to £3,000 per child per issue.
  • Interest is tax-free.
  • Capital is 100% secure because NS&I is an arm of the UK Treasury.
  • You can roll over the bonds every five years.
  • The rugrat takes over at age 16.

You can also invest between £100 and £30,000 in premium bonds that handover when the nipper makes 18.

For completion’s sake, and just in case you’ve got any money left, you could look up Friendly Society tax-exempt plans. You can only pay in up to £300 a year but the investment can run tax-free for 25 years and is run by a Mutual.

How to invest for children with silly parents

Funnily enough, the only resistance I ran into when investing for my nieces was from adults who thought it was a little cold to deny the kids the instant gratification of unwrapping a pressie.

But actually, I think the only people who are reluctant to give up their kicks are adults who enjoy a little bribery.

My eldest niece totally understands saving and is well able to visualise the money as her ticket to a proper toy like her first car.

Most kids don’t suffer from a shortage of instant gratification. So it makes sense to put your money towards something that will make a real difference when life gets a little tougher.

“Time for bed,” said Zebedee 

“Take it steady”, said The Accumulator

{ 40 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

Back in the days before Monevator, I used to argue on forums with ‘sophisticated’ investors who told me I was just jealous when I doubted the case for hedge funds.

Nowadays everyone and his dog knows most hedge funds don’t deliver returns to justify their fees or their fanfare.

Worse, their supposed hedging was revealed as an expensive chimera during the 2008 downturn, too.

Some big pension funds are pulling money from hedge funds, and not before time. Sky-high hedge fund fees have taken an estimated 84% of net real investors’ net profits since 1998!

Yet assets under management at hedge funds are still rising.

I am sure this is because rich people like to feel special, rather than because they’re smart.

Cor! Look at the correlation on that

During my debates of yesteryear, I was invariably told that as well as not understanding that hedge funds shouldn’t be compared to the market (as if losing 5% less in a downturn made up for years of lagging the market and massive fee engorgement) I also didn’t realize how valuable non-correlation was.

That was true. One’s appreciation of asset correlations is like fine wine – it gets better with age.

I now think if hedge funds as a class truly delivered uncorrelated returns, they might be worth the money.

But they barely do, as these graphs plucked from the latest Absolute Return Letter indicate:

(Click to enlarge)

(Click to enlarge)

The graphs show how various popular hedge fund strategies have becoming increasingly correlated with the returns from a portfolio of global equities.

Why pay 2/20% in fees if you can get roughly the same performance from cheap global equities and a bond ETF?

You can fool some people all of the time

Hedge funds once romped about in a world without much competition, and that is reflected in the left-hand side of the graphs.

Those were the good old days. Sophisticated investors really had stumbled onto something different.

However the very popularity of hedge funds – they now manage nearly $3 trillion in assets – has doomed them to mediocrity.

When you are the market, you can’t beat it, especially after stratospheric fees.

Even keeping anywhere near the market is now a high hurdle for hedge funds.

According to Bloomberg:

Hedge funds, on average, have returned just 2 percent in 2014, their worst performance since 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The article also says 2014 will be a bumper year for hedge fund closures.

Perhaps it will – but then again I’m sure 2015 will be a bumper year for hedge fund openings.

[continue reading…]

{ 2 comments }

Stamp duty on UK property

Stamp duty on UK property adds significantly to the cost of moving home.

You pay stamp duty on UK property when you buy a home that costs more than £125,000.

There is no stamp duty payable if you’re the seller of the property.

Stamp duty is a transaction tax (the long name is Stamp Duty Land Tax), which you need to take into account when working out your budget for moving or buying a home for the first time.

Buying a property in Scotland? From April 2015 stamp duty is replaced by a levy called the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax.

Stamp duty on UK property rates

The stamp duty rate paid by home buyers varies depending on the purchase price of the property.

There are five stamp duty rate bands. You pay stamp duty at the indicated rate on the portion of the price lying within each band.

The stamp duty rate bands are as follows:

Purchase price band Stamp duty rate
£0 – £125,000 0%
£125,001 – £250,000 2%
£250,001 – £925,000 5%
£925,001 – £1.5 million 10%
Over £1.5 million 12%

Source: GOV.UK

For instance, if you were buying a home for £400,000 you’d pay:

No stamp duty on the first £125,000 of the total £400,000.

A 2% stamp duty rate on the next £125,000 up to £250,000.

The 5% rate on the final £150,000 of your £400,0o0 purchase.

This works out as:

£0 (up to £125,000) + £2,500 (2% of £125,000) + £7,500 (on £150,000)

= £10,000 in total stamp duty.

Incredible! An improvement to the tax system

Under the old stamp duty system, stamp duty was payable at the highest applicable rate on the total purchase price of a property.

That was a really stupid way of doing things.

Stamp duty inevitably adds friction to the home buying process by making it much more expensive to move house, and it doesn’t do much to restrain prices.

But the old system also distorted asking prices.

For instance, there was a 3% band that kicked in if you bought a property worth more than £250,000. Stamp duty on a £250,000 property was £2,500, but were you to pay just £1 more you’d face a stamp duty tax bill of £7,500.

You’d pay an extra £5,000 in stamp duty because of that measly £1!

In reality few people would do that, so house prices were distorted around the different bands by sellers trying to take into account these warping effects when setting their asking price.

Similar one-bedroom Zone 3 London flats stayed priced at £250,000 for many months even in the rising market, for instance, before leaping up to £275,000 as a group. Very few people ever paid £255,000 in the meantime.

Buyers also resorted to ruses to reduce stamp duty.

The new stamp duty rates introduced in December 2014 did away with the distortions of the old ‘slab’ stamp duty system, because the higher rates are only chargeable on the portion of the property price that falls within each rate band. (It’s similar to what happens with your salary and income taxes).

In addition, the total stamp duty you’ll pay on a particular property price is lower in the vast majority of cases under the new system.

Chancellor George Osborne says you’d have to spend more than £937,000 to see your bill go up under the new system.

The £10,000 payable in my example above would have been a £12,000 stamp duty bill before – that’s a saving of £2,000 under the new stamp duty rules.

But put the Aldi prosecco back on ice – I’d expect any such savings in the cost of buying a home to be quickly reflected in house prices moving higher.

The main benefit of the 2014 overhaul of stamp duty will therefore be the removal of those cliff-edge distortions, which may make the market a tad more liquid, too.

Stamp duty on UK property calculator:

  • You can work out your stamp duty bill under the new system using this handy HMRC stamp duty calculator.

That calculator also shows you what was payable under the old rules, which may be handy to know if you’re in the midst of a move.

{ 25 comments }

How to invest in the profitability or quality factor

Ever been passed over for promotion by some smooth-talking stuffed shirt? Then take heart from the profitability factor. Also known as the quality factor, this is a real-world example of the triumph of the best over the rest.

The profitability/quality factor reveals that companies that make the best use of their capital outperform their less efficient brethren over the long-term.

In fact, the most profitable companies can bring home a return premium that has hitherto beaten the market by up to 4% a year.

The trick is to invest in the companies that are rippling with the signs of financial prowess most likely to predict profitability in the future.

Like a Moneyball chief scout or an international Top Trumps player, you need to know which stats matter most…

…or you could just pick an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) with Quality in its name.

Quality over quantity

There are only three quality factor ETFs currently available to UK investors. Choosing one shouldn’t take long, right?

The snag is that financial engineers have more definitions of quality than the Eskimos have words for snow.

True, every kind of return premium can be formulated in different ways

But quality comes in so many flavours that you just know some must be watered down.

How do you choose the right version of quality? Is there a right version? Which has performed best historically? Does it even matter?

A trip down quality street

First of all, it’s important to understand that quality can be defined by a single measure, or by a cocktail of stats as drawn from a company’s annual report.

Here’s a snapshot of the yardsticks used by different industry practitioners:

  • Gross profits / assets – This is gross profitability as defined by Professor Novy-Marx and widely considered to be the champagne of quality factors.
  • ROE, debt to equity and earnings variability – Used by the MSCI Quality Indices.
  • Stability of earnings and dividends over the last 10 years – The S&P formula.
  • Gross profits / assets and gross profit margins plus free cash flow / assets – The preference of US fund house AQR.
  • Net income, operating cash flow, return on assets, stability of earnings, leverage, liquidity equity issuance, gross margins and asset turnover – The Piotroski F-Score financial health test.

Novy-Marx’s work caused a stir because his gross profitability metric trounced the market by 4% a year between 1963 and 2011. As a single quality metric it’s tough to beat and I’d want it or a close proxy in any quality fund I bought into.

However even Novy-Marx thinks that the best quality metric will be a blend of measures. For example, cash flow / assets is unpolluted by some of the accounting inconsistencies that can interfere with the gross profitability signal.

The question then is do the available ETFs offer us the finest quality cuts, or are they slipping in some horse meat?

(Or – worse – horse output!)

Quality ETFs

Each ETF has its own quality mix

The three ETFs I mentioned earlier all track developed world equities, using a blended metric to tilt their holdings towards the quality end of the spectrum.

The higher a stock scores on the fund’s quality scale, the greater its presence, subject to any applicable cap.

Note: These ETFs are so new that it’s not even worth considering their track record – they just haven’t been around long enough for their track record to be relevant.

ETF OCF (%)1 Ticker Quality metrics
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor 0.3 IWQU High ROE, low leverage, stable earnings growth
db X-trackers Equity Quality Factor ETF 0.25 XDEQ High Return On Investment Capital (ROIC), low accruals
Lyxor ETF SG Global Quality Income 0.45 SGQL High Piotroski F Score, strong balance sheet, high dividend yield

Source: ETF suppliers

Unfortunately I’m not in love with any of these ETFs.

iShares MSCI World Quality Factor ETF

Let’s start with the iShares offering.

Gross profitability appears to be the most successful of the quality metrics, but the iShares ETF uses ROE instead. Its weakness is that it focuses on net profit.

Gross profitability highlights companies that are investing in future revenues by devoting resources to R&D and advertising. But these beneficial activities subtract from a firm’s net profit and make it look less profitable in ROE terms.

The paper Global Return Premiums on Earnings Quality, Value and Size analysed a suite of quality factors (not including gross profitability) and placed them in the following order of performance:

  1. Cash flow to assets
  2. Accruals
  3. ROE
  4. Low leverage

Cashflow was by far the best metric, with little separating the other three.

A second paper – this time by Pimco – criticises the other two metrics used by the iShares ETF: low leverage and stability of earnings growth.

Here’s what the paper’s authors have to say:

There is little agreement that buying stocks of companies with low debt generates alpha. In fact, according to the evidence available in the academic studies of Bhandari (1988) and Fama and French (1992), low-leverage firms tend to underperform.

We are not aware of any empirical link between earnings volatility and expected returns. The only related papers, to our knowledge, are Haugen and Baker (1996) and Huang (2009). The former found no significant relationship between returns and volatility of earnings yields. Huang found the firms with stable cash flows tend to outperform.

Finally, the annual return of MSCI’s quality metrics (as tracked by the ETF) trailed in a lowly fourth place between 1985 and 2012, according to the paper Defining Quality by the asset manager Northern Trust.

It ranked the annual returns of various quality formulas as follows:

  • Piotroski F-Score: 8.4%
  • DFA’s metric2: 6.3%
  • ROE: 5.5%
  • MSCI 4.9%

Overall then, I’m unconvinced that the iShares ETF is using a particularly effective form of quality.

What’s more, iShares optimisation rules mean that it can hold stocks that are not in the index if it thinks the substitutes will give a similar performance.

The whole point of passive investing is to provide a set of rules that remove subjective judgements – rather than to provide enough get out clauses that the fund manager can effectively do what it likes.

db X-trackers Equity Quality Factor ETF

The Deutsche Bank ETF whips up its quality formula from Return On Invested Capital (ROIC) and accruals.

Accruals is okay as a quality factor but hardly a barnstormer according to the Global Premiums paper referenced above.

Moreover, accruals can be calculated in many different ways, which adds an extra level of complexity when you’re trying to work out what exactly you’re getting from the ETF.

ROIC does marginally better than ROE in the return stakes according to Pimco, but it’s still a net income metric that lacks the potential punch of gross profitability.

Once again, I’m left with the feeling that the quality on offer could be better.

And I’ve got even bigger problems with the index the ETF tracks – it’s owned by Deutsche Bank who also own this ETF.

Deutsche Bank can amend its index rules as it sees fit. That lack of independence makes me uncomfortable with a product that is meant to operate according to a strict set of rules. Rules don’t mean much if you can change them at a stroke.

Lyxor ETF SG Global Quality Income

Multi-factor products are probably the future – a single fund that enables you to combine the profitability, value, momentum and market factors all in one.

The Lyxor product feels like an early stab at this. It combines aspects of value (a high dividend yield) with quality (the Piotroski F-Score) and ends up with a defensive tilt that resembles a low volatility ETF.

As we saw earlier, the F-Score has proved pretty successful in the past at capturing the quality premium.

Big tick!

However Lyxor’s defensive recipe then concentrates the ETF in 25 to 75 companies (versus 298 in the iShares ETF) with a 32% allocation to utilities alone, according to its fact sheet.

That’s effectively a bet on a particular sector that we have no reason to believe will outperform. There is no evidence to suggest that any sector delivers excess returns over time, and investors are not rewarded for taking that risk.

So while the asset allocation of this ETF is significantly different from the other two, the lack of diversification makes me wary.

The index used is again the property of its parent company, Societe Generale, with the wheel clamp on independence that implies.

Finally, it’s a synthetic ETF. That doesn’t overly bother me but it does bother many others.

Quality streak

All three ETFs contain an element of quality but not the high-grade stuff I’m looking for.

If they combined gross profitability with cash flow then I’d feel much happier about signing up. As it stands I’d rather wait and see if anything better comes along.

It must be said that different definitions of any risk factor will outperform at different times. For all anyone knows, the quality metrics of these ETFs could hit an amazing streak in the years to come.

For example, ROE weathered the 2000-2002 and 2008 bear markets very well. Low leverage was a star in the late 1990s but fell from the sky after the 2000 tech bubble burst.

But all that is a matter for the gods. Right now, I’m content to watch these first-mover products build up their track record while I wait for other market players to improve upon them with the next generation.

Think of it as like buying a high-quality third-generation Apple wonder-gadget, rather than a first iteration device held together with innovative sellotape.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Or TER. Learn more about the difference []
  2. Operating income before depreciation and amortisation minus interest expense scaled by book value – as practiced by passive investing fund house, Dimensional Fund Advisors. []
{ 20 comments }