≡ Menu

How to unitize your portfolio

Learn how to unitize your portfolio

Why would you want to unitize your portfolio? I mean life is short – and there’s a lot of good stuff on Netflix.

Well… maybe you’re a stock picker who wonders whether you’re beating the market?

Or perhaps you’re a passive investor keen to see how the returns from your DIY ETF portfolio compares to Vanguard’s LifeStrategy fund?

Whatever the motivation, you’ll need to track your performance versus active and index funds to know for sure.

And that means comparing your results calculated using the same methodology that they use – portfolio unitization or time-weighted returns.

If you think you’re a great investor but really you’re lagging the market by 3% a year, it will have a disastrous impact on your wealth compared to if you’d used index funds.

That’s not to mention the many hours wasted in fruitless research. (Unless you happen to enjoy it…)

Still want to know how you’re doing?

How to unitize your portfolio to track your returns

I believe the best way to track your returns is to unitize your portfolio.

Granted, you can use online portfolio tools or work out various numbers on-demand. But I think it’s better to take charge for yourself so you understand not just the numbers, but what is driving those numbers.

Moreover, it’s easy to do. You don’t have to pay a monthly subscription fee, nor worry about losing your data when that aging app is discontinued. 

To make it even easier we’ve created a unitized / time-weighted return spreadsheet to help you on your way.

Spread the word! You’ll find our example spreadsheet makes more sense after you’ve read the article that follows. But for now know there are two tabs – one to track cashflows and the other to track capital values and units. We’ve pre-populated the cells to illustrate how somebody might be tracking the ups and downs of their portfolio over a few years – as the market climbs and they add new money, receive dividends, and decide to withdraw some cash. Make a copy of the spreadsheet to delete our example data and start tracking your own.

What is unitization?

Unitization is the method used by fund managers who must account for money that flows in and out of their open-ended funds.

And because it’s the industry standard method for measuring returns, unitization means you can compare your performance with any existing fund.

You can also compare a unitized portfolio’s performance against a benchmark such as an index.

And unitization encourages you to keep decent records – also important if you’re trying not to kid yourself.

As physicist Richard Feynman warned: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Why open-ended funds are called unit trusts

You are probably already familiar with unit pricing when it comes to funds.

If not, here’s a quick refresher.

When you invest your money into an open-ended fund, you buy a certain amount of units in that fund with your money.

For instance, let’s say I have £18,420.58 invested in the European Index Trust run by Fictitious Fund Co (FFC).

The FFC website tells me how it calculates this:

Number of units I own: 6,564.712
Unit price Buy/Sell: 280.6p/280.6p
Value: £18,420.58 (i.e. 280.6 pence x 6,564.712 units)

All investors in FFC’s European index fund would see exactly the same unit price.

However they will own different numbers of units, depending on how much they have invested.

Making more units

Whenever investors put additional money into the European Index Trust, FFC creates new units at the prevailing unit price.

The new money buys the right number of units at that price for the money invested.

For example, if the unit price were 280.6p, then investing £5,000 would buy you 1,781.9 additional units.

The new cash you’ve invested now comprises part of the assets of the unit trust, which offsets the creation of those new units.

The fund’s total Assets under Management (AUM) have increased, but the returns haven’t changed just because new money has been added. This is confirmed by the unchanged unit pricing.

Finally, the fund manager deploys your extra money to buy more holdings in order to keep the fund doing what it says on the tin.

In this example, he or she buys more shares to match the European Index.

Unit prices and new money

The crucial point is that adding new money does not change the price of a unit.

Only gains and losses on investments, dividends and interest, and costs that are charged against the portfolio’s assets will change the price of a unit.

For example, if the companies owned by the European Index fund rose 10% in value, then the unit price would be expected to increase by 10%, too.

So here the new unit cost would be:

280.6*1.1 = 308.66p.

Measuring changes in the value of units like this – as opposed to measuring the total monetary size of the fund – enables the manager to maintain a consistent record of performance.

A record that is not distorted by money coming in and going out.

Also, when an investor wants to cash out from the fund, there’s no confusion about what percentage of the assets they own or anything like that.

They’ll own a certain number of units. To cash out, they sell them back to the fund manager at the prevailing unit price.

For instance, let’s say you own 600 units.

At 280.6p per unit, you’d cash out with:

£2.806 x 600 = £1,683.60

By unitizing your portfolio, you can use the same principle to measure your own returns – whether you’re saving and investing extra cash or you’re withdrawing money from the portfolio.

How to unitize your portfolio

So far, so boring.

Well, we are talking about accountancy here!

I’ll level with you. Things aren’t going to get any more exciting.

However the good news is that unitizing your portfolio is a very straightforward process. 

1. First decide on an arbitrary unit value

The first thing you need to do is to decide what one unit in ‘your fund’ is worth.

It’s a totally arbitrary decision, as it will just be used as the base for future return calculations.

Many people choose £1.

I chose £100 for egomaniacal reasons.

2. Calculate how many units you currently have

As it’s Year Zero for unitizing your returns, you need to work out how many units you currently have.

This is based on the total value of everything in the portfolio you’re tracking, together with the unit value you just came up with.

You simply divide the former by the latter.

Let’s say your portfolio is £50,000 and your unit value is £100.

This means you have 500 units to begin with, like so:

£50,000/£100 = 500 units

Create a column on your spreadsheet to track the unit number. 

Pop in another column to track the value of each unit:

£50,000/500 units = £100 unit value. Think of this column as the index value of your portfolio. It starts at 100 points. 

As time goes on, you can chart your progress by plotting your (hopefully) growing unit/index values on a graph. (See the Portfolio unit value column on our accompanying spreadsheet.)

I track these numbers on my own spreadsheet. It tells me what my portfolio is worth right now, what one unit is worth, and how many units I have.

From this it also works out and tells me my returns over various periods.

3. If you don’t add new money you can now easily track your returns

Let’s say you never did add or remove another penny from your portfolio.

You know how many units you have, and you know the starting unit value.

Working out your unitized returns from here is a doddle.

For example, let’s say your portfolio increases to £60,000.

The unit value is now:

£60,000/500 = £120

Your return to-date is the change in unit value.

£120-£100/£100 = 20%

However you hardly needed to unitize to see that!

4. Adjust your total units as you add new money

The whole point of unitizing is to properly take into account money added or removed from the portfolio.

Every time you add new money, you need to calculate and take note of the value of one unit.

For instance, let’s say that when your portfolio hits £60,000 you decide this investing lark is a piece of cake, and so decide to add in another £6,000.

The unit value before the additional cash is added, as above, is £120.

Now we need to calculate how many units our new money buys:

New money added / unit cost = number of new units
£6,000/ £120 = 50 new units

This means your £66,000 portfolio now comprises 550 units.

You can see this calculation in our dummy spreadsheet. The new £6,000 is inputted into the Cashflow tab, and you can see the extra 50 units show up on the Unitized return tab – Unit change column. 

5. Keeping ‘buying’ new units as you add money

This process is simply repeated over your investing lifetime.

Let’s say the value of your portfolio increases to £69,850, and you decide to add an ISA contribution of £15,240.

First:

Unit value = portfolio value / number of units
Unit value = £69,850/550
And so…
Unit value = £127

Number of new units that £15,240 buys:

New money added/ unit cost = number of new units
£15,240/£127 = 120 new units

With the new ISA money your portfolio is now worth £85,090, and is comprised of 670 units (that is, 550+120).

As always you note down the total unit number for next time.

6. What happens when you remove some money?

When money is removed entirely from the portfolio, the principle is exactly the same as when money as added. The number of units changes as a consequence, but not the unit value.

You are effectively ‘selling’ units in your own fund to free up the cash. Obviously this procedure doesn’t change the returns you have achieved on the mix of assets you happen to hold.

For example, let’s say your portfolio continues to motor on and breaks through six figures to hit £100,165.

At this point you get collywobbles (I told you there was a downside to tracking your returns) and you decide to spend £10,000 of it while you’ve still got your teeth.

You know from your records that your portfolio currently consists of 670 units.

This means the unit value currently is:

£100,165/670= £149.50

You decide to remove £10,016.50 from the portfolio to keep the sums simple:

£10,016.50/£149.50 = 67 units

After the withdrawal you have £90,148.50 in your portfolio represented by 603 units (670-67).

The sale is noted in the Withdrawals column of our spreadsheet in the Cashflow tab. The liquidated units are tracked in the Unitized return tab. 

7. Work out your unitized return at any point

At any moment in time you can see exactly what your return is by looking at your unit value.

For instance, let’s say that after all of the above, your portfolio ends the year with a value of £90,450.

Your unit value is:

£90,450/603= £150

So your unitized return since you unitized your portfolio is:

£150-£100/£100 = 50%

This is the return that you can compare with trackers and other funds and benchmarks that report their returns over the same period.

Let’s say at the end of next year a unit was worth £160.

You started the period with a unit value of £150. So your return over the year is:

£160-150/150= 6.67%

You see how easy it is to calculate and note down your annual return figures every year.

What about expenses?

If you cover costs like broker fees, stamp duty, and accrued interest with external money that you add to your investment account, then these amounts should be included in your incoming cashflows. 

The treatment is different if you pay your costs by selling assets, or if you use dividends, or other cash lying around the portfolio.

In the latter case, the expenditure is taken care of by a reduction in your portfolio’s value. You needn’t even note when these costs are paid. Your portfolio will simply be smaller than otherwise next time you record its value. If all prices remained the same then you’d see that a small loss had been inflicted by the fees.

As ever, fees reduce returns and higher costs are a greater drag factor than lower ones. 

What about dividends, interest, redemptions, spin-offs, and so on?

You needn’t worry about these so long as they’re retained within your portfolio. 

The number of units you own doesn’t change because you were paid a dividend – no more than if one of your shares went up by 20p.

But your units do now represent more assets, in the form of that extra dividend cash. That increases the value of each of your units.

You can see this play out in the dummy spreadsheet when the portfolio receives £3,000 worth of dividends on 1 January 2026. (Yes, this is Doctor Who’s portfolio.) 

The unit value rises from 160 to 164.98 and the portfolio gains 3.11%. 

However, if you withdraw any of this income from your investment account then it should be logged as an outflow. 

Our sample spreadsheet books a £1,000 dividend withdrawal on 2 Jan 2026. The value of the portfolio decreases but it doesn’t count as a loss because the number of units is reduced to compensate. 

Hmm, unitization sounds like a lot of work

It’s really not, once you’ve set it up properly.

My spreadsheet tells me my current portfolio and unit value at any time.

A sheet also tracks money added and subtracted over the year, and calculates the number of units added or subtracted when I do so. They get added to the ongoing tally.

At the end of the year I simply record all the relevant values for my records. (I also export a snapshot of the spreadsheet as a PDF to serve as an archive).

Then, on the first trading day of the New Year, I hand-update the spreadsheet with my starting unit value and the total number of units.

This makes it easy to see and record my discrete total return figures for every year.

What if I have multiple dealing accounts, SIPPs, and the like?

I track all my different holdings on one spreadsheet.

Then I unitize the returns on this entire portfolio, and also track expenses, portfolio turnover, and other interesting figures across the entire piece. If you take monthly snapshots you can track your volatility, too. 

This is exactly how I measure my own total returns across half a dozen different platforms and brokers.

There’s not a lot of point in tracking the returns in a SIPP separately from returns in an ISA, in my view.

Ultimately it’s all your net worth. They’re just different baskets.

However if you did want to track how particular accounts are doing – perhaps because you employ different investing strategies in one versus another – then you could create separate spreadsheets to follow them.

You’d also have to track separate money flows in and out of each them, and generate unitized return figures for each ‘pot’ of cash.

Remember, you’d still want to unitize the entire portfolio to properly track your overall returns. (Rather than, say, averaging the returns on the different accounts, as this would not account for the different amount of money in each – though you could create a weighted average I suppose).

Time-weighted returns versus money-weighted returns

There are many different ways of calculating returns. They all have value in different circumstances. And they usually deliver different numbers.

Unitization offers a time-weighted return while the main alternative uses the XIRR Excel function to calculate your money-weighted return. 

  • Time-weighted returns – all time periods are weighted equally, irrespective of how much money is invested when. Unitization tells you the underlying investment performance, and strips out the impact of money flowing in and out. This is the best way to compare your results against other portfolios, funds, indices, and even rival assets like cash in the bank or the price of Bitcoin.  
  • Money-weighted returns – this means that time periods in which more money is invested have more of an impact on the overall return than equivalent time periods in which less money is invested. So doubling your first £50 does not count for as much as doubling £500,000 does later on.  

Monevator reader John Hill’s excellent comment below sheds additional light on the two measures with some illuminating examples. 

Getting the measure of market timing

XIRR calculates the Annualised Internal Rate of Return on a portfolio. The gist is that you supply the XIRR function with a column in your spreadsheet that lists these cash additions and withdrawals. The function then uses an iterative process to hone in on your returns.

It makes sense for the fund industry to use unitization. That’s because a fund manager typically has no control over when money is added or removed from their fund – it comes from the fund’s customers – and also because it’s the choice and performance of the underlying assets that matters when evaluating how skilful a manager is. (That’s the same reason I unitize my returns).

However some would argue that a money-weighted return like XIRR makes more sense from the perspective of a private investor. You are in control of money flows and what matters to you is your personal rate of return.

Many private investors derail their results with poor market timing. But by calculating and comparing both the unitized return and a money-weighted return you can spot the impact of poor (or – who knows – maybe good) market decisions timing on your portfolio.

The Henry Wirth investing blog explains:

  • If your money-weighted return rate is greater than your time-weighted return rate, then your market timing is adding value to your portfolio.
  • If your time-weighted return rate is greater than your money-weighted return rate, then your market timing is subtracting value from your portfolio.

The Accumulator tracks both. Read his companion post on how to calculate your money-weighted return

Do it for yourself

Personally I think if you’re going to keep track of the money flows in and out of your account, then you might as well go the whole hog and unitize your portfolio.

Once you’ve setup a spreadsheet to do the sums it’s very easy to stay on top of things. Moreover you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing your returns are directly comparable with those reported by fund managers.

That’s not to say there’s a right or wrong way to measure returns.

It all depends on context, and on knowing what you’re measuring and why.

Also remember that in itself a return figure tells you nothing about the volatility or risk you took to get those returns. Nor about the maximum troughs (aka drawdown, or losses at the portfolio level) that you endured along the way.

But if you unitize your portfolio and keep records of, say, the daily unit price, then you can track that sort of thing for yourself if you’re so inclined.

Indeed, once you’ve unitized your portfolio, you can go crazy if you want to and use it as the basis for calculating all kinds of extra stuff – such as the Sharpe Ratio that might help you understand if your returns are down to skill or risk taking.

Who knows – if you’re young and feisty, maybe you could even include your unitized returns in your cover letter asking for a job with Ficticious Fund Co!

Credit to The Accumulator for the unitization spreadsheet he made to accompany this update. Many thanks TA! Please let him know if you spot any errors via the comments below… 😉

{ 104 comments }

Weekend reading: Bitcoin’s $100,000 question

Weekend Reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

While the world potentially inched closer to World War 3 this week, Bitcoin fans had a more exciting horizon in mind. One where their love-hate digital asset finally boasted a six-figure price tag.

Some $133m spent in election lobbying says Donald Trump will be a crypto-friendly president. Bitcoin was already having one of its bursts of enthusiasm, but Trump’s reelection was a lift-off moment:

Similarly, the then-imminent approval in the US of Bitcoin ETFs in early 2024 we talked about in January got this rally started. But any snapshot of a super-volatile asset like Bitcoin only tells half the story.

For instance Bitcoin’s price has more than doubled since February 2021, when I made the case for even sensible investors holding 1-5% in a diversified portfolio.

Great – but not long after that article Bitcoin lost around three-quarters of its value in a peak-to-trough fall that bottomed out in early 2023.

Or go back further in the Monevator archives and you’ll find me suggesting Bitcoin was probably in a bubble in December 2017. By some fluke that post did roughly coincide with a peak. The Bitcoin price went on to again slump 75%, this time to under $4,000.

But of course the price is now up five-fold since that particular bubble-frenzy. So the smart – or strategically dumb – move was arguably to hold – I mean HODL – throughout.

Fortunately my 2017 article was very open-handed about where Bitcoin could go next. Amid much prevarication I wrote:

A price collapse wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of bitcoin or blockchain, any more than the bursting of the Dotcom boom halted the Internet.

Bitcoin could go on to be a household name for the rest of our lives, something we all might use. Perhaps it is the future of currencies?

Maybe it is a new store of value?

Seven years later I’d say almost the same thing.

True, as I’ve written before I think the longer Bitcoin lasts the longer it will last. There’s a self-reinforcing quality to every climb out of the dumpster. So I judge it to be in a much stronger position than 2017.

All the same, this latest mania looks bubbly once again.

Some coins are gonna make it more than others

MicroStrategy is a poster child for the current Bitcoin bullishness. Founder and Bitcoin evangalist Michael Saylor has basically turned his software company into a Bitcoin fund with a side hustle in writing code.

It’s been an incredibly profitable strategy. MicroStrategy shares are up nearly 2,700% over the last five years alone. Approximately none of that is due to it selling software licenses.

MicroStrategy now has about $33bn worth of Bitcoin on the balance sheet. But as I tweeted on Thursday, the trouble is the market prices MicroStrategy’s stash at nearer $300,000 than $100,000.

Commenting on Bluesky:

For once the world listened. Yes, the very next day Microstrategy shares had cratered to under $400!

Okay, or ‘perhaps’ it was actually an announcement by the infamous short-seller Citron Research that it was betting against the stock that sent the shares south.

Citron’s position is the same as mine – no argument in particular here with Bitcoin, but no sensible reason why MicroStrategy’s coins should be worth three-times everyone else’s.

Adding to the personal drama for me, I actually own a little bit of MicroStrategy! Indeed I began the year with a fairly decent chunk, as a proxy for betting on the post-ETF approval Bitcoin price. But I’ve sold it down as the price has climbed throughout 2024.

Which – to be clear for anyone who struggles with graphs – was not the way to maximise my gains.

Number goes up. Right?

Anyway, MicroStrategy fanboys have an explanation for the to-me crazy premium on the stock, which Jack Raines summarises on Sherwood as:

Think about it like this: if MicroStrategy holds ~$30 billion in bitcoin and the company’s worth ~$100 billion, by issuing $1 billion in convertible debt (or equity) to buy bitcoin, its bitcoin holdings increase by ~3% while equity is only diluted by ~1%.

Buying pressure sends the price of bitcoin higher, MicroStrategy’s stock continues to increase as bitcoin grows more valuable, and the cycle repeats.

The crypto bros are calling this a ‘money glitch’. You don’t have to search hard to find Tweets and even videos where they claim this ‘perpetual money machine’ could be the solution to everything from student debt to solving the government deficit.

I know…

Anyway, older hands like me call it a ‘roll-up’.

And there’s nothing new about selling your own highly rated equity to buy low-rated stuff that gets re-rated on your balance sheet.

Sometimes it works for a long time and the roller-upper is able to eventually transition into creating enduring value. (e.g. Think companies like Constellation or WPP or even Berkshire Hathaway at a push).

But very often it blows up. (Numerous UK small-caps over the years, or the Valeant roll-up that caught hedge fund manager Bill Ackman out.)

Time will tell with MicroStrategy. But I hope Saylor is being very careful with its debt, because the one thing we know about Bitcoin is that the price does not move in a straight line.

Who’s zooming who

Monevator favourite Cullen Roche did a good job of explaining why MicroStrategy’s, um, strategy is both brilliant – you can’t argue with Saylor’s returns – and something that will only work until it doesn’t:

To some degree it’s all very Ponzi-like. MSTR is selling bonds to fund purchases of BTC and those purchases help drive the price of BTC up which allows MSTR to finance more bonds.

It’s magnificently brilliant as long as the price of BTC keeps going up. As long as it keeps going up.

Many things can be true at once.

You can believe that Bitcoin has established itself as a long-term asset, and still think the price looks frothy.

You can salute MicroStrategy’s lucrative capital allocation policy while believing it’s sitting on a box of nitroglycerine.

And you can think Trump will be good for crypto while wondering whether he’ll (reliably) be this good.

Heck, you can think Bitcoin is a resource-burning scam for dupes while still profiting from trading it.

As Finumus wrote in his excellent Moguls piece this week:

I’ve learnt not to let my beliefs get in the way of a profit.

Alas UK regulators are letting their beliefs get in the way of UK investors making a profit.

I have mostly owned MicroStrategy because as a UK investor I can’t buy a Bitcoin ETF in my ISA due to what seems to me an arbitrary decision not to approve such ETFs for retail investors in the UK.

(And let’s face it, with capital gains tax going the way it has, Bitcoin holdings kept outside of ISAs are now pregnant with gains headed to HMRC…)

Yet the same UK regulators enable us to buy triple-levered ETFs – on MicroStrategy no less – on some platforms.

And of course we’re free to buy Bitcoin outside of tax shelters.

I fail to see a consistent logic.

Too hard to HODL

The total value of all Bitcoin is currently around $2 trillion. While I don’t entirely dismiss that figure ending up closer to zero, I also think it’s very plausible that – on the ‘store of value’ thesis – that Bitcoin’s total value could eventually match gold’s ‘market cap’, which is was around $17 trillion last time I looked.

If that happens then the UK’s current regulations could cost Britain hundreds of billions if we collectively under-own Bitcoin as a result.

Finally, to be clear, all the environmental worries about Bitcoin remain legitimate concerns, the crypto space still feels over-hyped and under-necessary, and nobody needs to own any Bitcoin if they don’t want to.

Many things can be true at once.

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 48 comments }

A speculative education [Members]

Moguls logo

“To make money they didn’t have and didn’t need, they risked what they did have and did need. That is foolish.”
– Warren Buffett (on Long-Term Capital Management)

Journey back with me through time to the home of a young Finumus. Peeking in through the sitting room window, we find the little scamp working at the family dining table.

This article can be read by selected Monevator members. Please see our membership plans and consider joining! Already a member? Sign in here.
{ 35 comments }

Weekend reading: Again, everything is cyclical, again

Weekend Reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

I noticed UK commercial property giant Landsec posted decent first-half results this week.

CEO Mark Allan reckons:

“…property values have stabilised, with growth in rental values driving a modest increase in capital values, resulting in a positive total return on equity.

We expect these trends to persist, as customer demand for our best-in-class space remains robust and investment market activity has started to pick up.”

After four miserable years, things might be looking up for the owners of offices and retail parks.

Is this because fewer people are still working from home, new office supply has cratered, interest rates have stopped going up, or enough of the weaker players have thrown in the towel?

All of the above, I imagine.

But Landsec (ticker: LAND) shares still trade at a 30% discount to net assets, even as those asset values have stabilised. In other words it’s early days and the market is yet to be convinced.

What normally happens next is economic growth reaccelerates, office space tightens, increasingly marginal offices are built, discounts narrow and eventually maybe even turn to a premium, chubby guys in hard hats appear in the Sunday papers touted as ‘the new builders of Britain’, bank lending gets sloppy as the good years roll on, euphoria is misidentified as robust business confidence, and only when a shock finally hits us and the music stops do we discover who borrowed too much.

It could be different this time. Maybe because of WFH. Maybe because of AI. Perhaps self-driving cars will rewrite geography.

It usually feels like something special is going on that could change the game.

Mostly though – big picture – it doesn’t.

The political big dipper

You see the same thing playing out in the wider economy – and more viscerally in this year’s politics.

In the Financial Times John Burn-Murdoch notes how voters globally have punished whoever is in power:

Like everyone and his dog I have my theories about why Trump won the presidency and the Tories lost. There’s a bull market in competing explanations.

The US result is especially perplexing – even terrifying – given how confused voters seem to have been.

In an excellent review of why Trump triumphed, Kyla Scanlon reminds us:

People think that violent crime rates are at all-time highs, that inflation has still skyrocketed, that the market is at all-time lows, and that unauthorised border crossings are at all-time highs.

None of those are true – it’s all the opposite. But those misinformed views informed how people voted.

In blind polling Republicans actually preferred the policies of Kamala Harris! Yet one narrative gaining traction among a certain ilk of terminally online ‘bros’ is that this election saw voters ‘liberated’ from the ‘gatekeepers’ of ‘mainstream media’.

That’s true in as much as many voters believed – and voted on the back of – unrealities that fitted their priors.

Bring back the media gatekeepers, I say.

Tracing the source

Given the universal slap in the face of incumbent parties though, we might do better to look for the global driver of voter unrest, rather than gaze too closely at the minutia of America’s psychodrama.

Inflation must be the culprit. People hate it, and they felt it everywhere.

Partly because global supply chain disruption is – doh – global. But also because everyone suffered through the same pandemic.

For various reasons – natural and mandated – economies cratered in 2020 due to Covid. Many businesses were at risk of going bust, and households of going bankrupt.

People seem to have already forgotten this graph:

Mass unemployment faced the authorities that grim spring. In response they deployed vast support packages and/or stimulus and paid citizens to stay at home. Easier money kept firms on life support.

It worked to prevent a slump. But one way or another – and aided by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – it eventually gave us inflation a couple of years later, and then higher interest rates to knock the inflation back.

It’s perplexed onlookers that despite a peerlessly strong US economy with record low unemployment and a soaring stock market, voters complained of living through economically awful times.

Few of them now seem to recall those job losses – far less think about the counterfactual of a depression if nothing had been done.

They see much higher prices, feel poorer (despite higher wages in most cases), and rage.

What have you done for me lately

Would they have preferred high unemployment to high inflation?

The trade-off would never have been so simple. But yes, I think many secretly would have.

For most people, unemployment happens to the other guy. In contrast we all feel the pain of inflation.

For now at least the cycle has turned again, and inflation is subdued.

True, swingeing tariffs in the US might upset that soon. But until then, every day people get a little more used to prices at these levels, and they begin to forget what they were so cross about.

Why are interest rates so high anyway, they ask.

Inflation is low. Don’t these central bankers know ANYTHING?

Master market

For those of us who breath the markets, these cycles turn at double-speed. Wheels within wheels.

The markets are like a nervous cabin boy, dashing about a ship that’s steadily forging through the surf.

The ship makes its stately way, over time passing through fine waters, choppy seas, storms, and worse.

But the cabin boy lives out all of those scenarios many times every day in his head.

He sees cyclones from every mast, yelps at the slightest swell, and yet he also wants to break out the rum for a party the moment the sun shines.

Every day is an adventure ride of ups and downs! With enough time however even the stock market’s scatterbrained progress looks inevitable.

Take a moment to remember all the drama of the past five years. Then look at this graph:

Golden years

The funny thing is I didn’t start this ramble to reinforce that equities eventually go up: don’t worry, be happy.

In fact I was going to highlight the latest data on how US equity valuations are getting into rarified air – truly Dot Com Bubble-type multiples.

But like everyone else we’ve been saying similar all year. The US market has climbed on anyway. Even the Trump Bump seems nothing special on that graph above.

I know it’s hard to imagine US stocks not being the only game in town. So it might be an instructive to read this Sherwood article about how gold has actually beaten US equities since the late 1990s.

According to Deutsche Bank data:

The asset of the new millennium has been gold, delivering a real return of 6.8% per year since the end of 1999 despite being a shiny rock that generates no earnings and pays no dividends.

So far, the S&P 500 has averaged total [real] returns of 4.9% over this stretch.

Incredible, no?

So bad were returns from US stocks between 2000 and 2010 that the almighty bull market that began in the rubble of the financial crisis has still barely lifted returns back into ‘adequate’ range.

And US tech in 2010? You could hardly give it away.

Life beyond AI

To return to where I started (thematically on-point, eh) Landsec shares actually fell on its reasonable results.

Because of course they did. Landsec is a forgotten share in a discarded sector that trades on the still mostly-unloved UK stock market.

But it probably won’t always be this way.

Okay – perhaps AI really is ‘all that’, as an ex of mine from the North used to say.

If ChatGPT 2030 can do all our jobs, then presumably we won’t need Landsec’s offices. Nor will most people have money to buy drinks from Diageo (ticker: DGE) or even to buy the houses they browse on Rightmove (ticker: RMV).

Sometimes things really do change. I started including an AI section in the links years ago – before most people had heard of LLMs and all the rest – because of this potential. AI is important because there’s a small chance of something truly seismic, existential even, for humanity.

But there’s no certainty.

Indeed it’s surely more likely that AI is overhyped, that the biggest US tech firms will invest hundreds of billions just to destroy their margins, the US market will accordingly falter, and something else will get a turn on the merry-go-round.

Maybe even boring British shares. After all they’re mostly cheap, pumping out cash, buying back their own stock – and yeah, many could hardly grow more slowly, so the only way is up…

Who knows? Perhaps they’ll be helped along by a global economy that finally forgets the pandemic and frets less about inflation, gets used to interest rates of 4-5% again, and at last goes back to normal.

For a while, at least. Until we go through the wringer again…

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 19 comments }