≡ Menu

It ain’t what you do it’s what it does to you

“I am not obliged to do any more. No man is obliged to do as much as he can do. A man is to have part of his life to himself.”
Samuel Johnson

I assume the famous 18th Century Londoner and dictionary pioneer Samuel Johnson would include women if he were still issuing pithy soundbites today.

Because despite the headlines about high youth unemployment – or perhaps the cause of some of them – the bigger problem is that British men and women alike are working too many hours.

Since the recession pulled down productivity, we’re producing 21% less output per hour of wage slavery than the average G7 nation.

Real incomes have stagnated, too. The 1% are at least getting richer off of all this effort – and you can if you run your life like a capitalist – but many in the middle are in hock to a treadmill they bought on a payday loan from a late night TV shopping channel to keep up with their next door neighbour’s rat rotastak.

Sorry, I think I got up on the wrong side of bed.

Ratting out the rat race

As a nation we’ve worked hard for decades to get ever more deeply into debt.

And what for?

Even the simplest middle-class aspiration – a humble mortgage – looks all but beyond the next generation.

In the South East we’ve built too few homes, allowed too few to buy the ones we have built, and bid up house prices to a level where the Bank of England governor has just stepped in to stop first-time buyers in London (at least those who don’t work in the City or have a hotline to the Bank of Mum and Dad) from getting a house in the traditional pre-financial crisis way – enough optimistic bragging about their income to make an oligarch blush, if not outright fraud.

But maybe it’s all academic, anyway. Who can afford to buy a house after they’ve paid for university?

Enough!

Instead of slaving away for 45 50 years and keeping your spirits going with stuff you don’t need, can’t afford, can’t digest, or that plays havoc with your marriage and/or your nasal passages, why not slave away (or work smarter) for merely 20-25 years, spend less, invest the spare, and retire early to a life of leisure, global exploration, study, money-making on your own terms, or a dream career that pays peanuts?

Or heck, even dossing at Ladbrokes as the only mug punter in credit if that’s what floats your boat.

The point is to find your own terms, as best you can, and live them. We live in a world full of money, wealth and opportunity, but it’s easy to squander the lot.

“Most people are too busy earning a living to make any money,” someone once said.

History doesn’t record if he said it hunched over a desk he didn’t want to be at aged 65.

Then again, perhaps the words weren’t bitter, but triumphant. Shouted into the wind from a chilly, gorgeous and empty British beach where he was walking his dog during rush hour, because he runs his business from home.

Live this moment

The title of today’s post was nicked from the British poet Simon Armitage’s wonderful Selected Poems.

The following two stanzas from his poem It Ain’t What You Do It’s What It Does To You sums it up for me – and I am partly writing this rant because I’ve drifted myself, and I need to get back on track.

I have not padded through the Taj Mahal
barefoot, listening to the space between
each footfall picking up and putting down
its print against the marble floor. But I

skimmed flat stones across Black Moss on a day
so still I could hear each set of ripples
as they crossed. I felt each stones’ inertia
spend itself against the water; then sink.

You’re a long time dead.

{ 21 comments }

How to buy your first index trackers

There’s a gap. A gap that exists between the last page of the investing advice books and buying your first index tracker fund.

Where are these fabled funds that lead to passive investing nirvana? How do you pull the trigger? “Just tell me how to buy index trackers, would you?!”

Your wish, dear reader…

I’m assuming you’ve done your research, decided upon your goals, your asset allocation, and the dollop of regular contributions you’ll make towards your masterplan. You’ve opted for the DIY investing route, and the only thing left to do is execute.

I’m also assuming you’re a passive investor who wants to stick primarily to simple index funds and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). Because that’s my tribe.

Where to buy index trackers

Buy online. Human contact only ratchets up expense and could leave you in the hands of some slippery smoothie with a script – a script designed to fatten their bank account, rather than yours.

Choose the cheapest online broker (also known as a platform) you can find. Our broker comparison table will help you pick out the right one.

How to buy your first index tracker

Don’t go directly to the fund provider, don’t use a full-service, ‘advice’ dispensing stockbroker, and definitely don’t walk into your local bank with a bag full of used tenners.

The best brokers offer the DIY investor:

  • The cheapest method of buying, selling and holding funds.
  • A wide choice of funds from different providers that you can mix and match.
  • Tax shields for your funds – stocks & shares ISAs and SIPPs.
  • A regular investment scheme to automate drip-feeding.
  • Online portfolio tools to track your investments.
  • Fund search facilities.
  • Easy access to your funds and paperwork.
  • An execution-only service – so no advice on purchases.

There’s little practical difference between the various offerings. Hargreaves Lansdown are the one broker that most people have actually heard of but they’re expensive. They score well for customer service but you will pay a premium for it.

I’ve personally experienced four cheaper brokers and never had a problem with the customer service.

The most important thing to be aware of is you’re choosing an execution-only service. You pay low fees because you’re not getting any advice.

Also, your first choice investing platform may not carry the products you want. Always check using the site’s search tool before signing up and transferring money.

Key decision

One of the most important decisions you will make is whether you will pay your broker a flat-rate or percentage fee for their services.

A percentage fee is best for small investors who are likely to have less than £30,000 in assets because that will work out cheaper than the most competitive flat rate charge on the market.

A flat-rate fee is cheapest for investors who are heading north of that £30,000 fee mark. At this point percentage fees slice off more from your assets than the keenest flat rates out there.

You can calculate your own situation here. Most brokers have chosen either a flat rate or percentage fee charging scheme and our broker comparison table has split them along those lines.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 68 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

Blogger Ermine has been retired for nearly two years now. Many Monevator readers are familiar with his dispatches from the other side of the 9-to-5, which he recapped this week in a monster anniversary post sharing what he’s learned.

The following section stood out for me — because instead of the stereotypical vision of an early retiree quipping “so long, suckers!” before hitting the golf course, it makes Ermine sound like a rescued battery chicken relearning how to peck about in the grass:

“I retired early because I was stressed and became increasingly out of sync with the way work was being run.

I am still recovering from that.

It is only recently that I can reliably hear what is good in music, and there’s still a while to go before I will have recovered this to what I once had

In a myriad of small ways I am still reminded that I pushed my luck flying into the storm for three years, and indeed to carry on after I had been off sick.”

Thank goodness he got out! As I’ve said before, don’t kill yourself for your job. It’s not worth it.

Escape if you need to and do something different. If it’s less lucrative, cut your cloth. Anyone who has found and can read this website has many options.

My solution long ago was to escape office life — with all its comforting security and its progression — to become a freelancer and mini-entrepreneur. To my kind of spirit, the security and progression of a typical job feels like systematically moving through the prison system towards parole.

We’re all different. I know a few people who love their jobs, and more who love their careers.

[continue reading…]

{ 17 comments }

When to buy insurance

(Photo) Ex-hedge fund manager Lars Kroijer, who believes people buy too much insurance.

This article on when to buy insurance is from former hedge fund manager turned author Lars Kroijer, an occasional contributor to Monevator. His most recent book, Investing Demystified, makes the strong case for index funds.

Most people buy far too much insurance. In this article I will explain why I believe you should only buy insurance when you really can’t afford the loss.

To understand my way of thinking, we will have to look at insurance from a different perspective – that of the business model of an insurance company.

“Come off it Lars. The only thing more boring than insurance is the inner workings of an insurance company…”

Stay with me! You might just save a lot of money over your lifetime.

How insurance works

Let’s start with the basics. The world of insurance can be divided into life and non-life insurance.

We’ll consider non-life insurance as an illustration.

Non-life insurance is for things such as your phone, car, house, travel, and other non-life things.

You might pay £500 to insure a £10,000 car against, for example, theft. In simple terms, the probability of making a claim against the full value of the car in any one year has to be 5%.1 Without necessarily thinking about it in those terms, most buyers of insurance probably consider 5% about right and therefore they believe that taking out the insurance is worth it.

But I do not think this is a good deal.

The reason I would not buy £500 insurance on my £10,000 car – other than the third-party insurance required by law – is down to my knowledge of the insurance company’s combined ratio.

The combined ratio is the sum of the claims and expense ratio.

  • The claims ratio is exactly that – what the company pays out in claims to people whose cars were stolen or damaged, out of the pot of money it collects in premiums from customers.
  • The expense ratio is all the other costs of the insurance company – marketing, administration, overhead, and so on.

Some types of insurance companies can have combined ratios over 100%. If customer’s claims don’t come due for a while, then the insurers can earn an interest on the premiums they’ve already collected until the claim falls due.

Earning money by investing this ‘float’ of premiums explains how insurance companies can be profitable, even when they write unprofitable insurance and so sport an overall combined ratio of greater than 100%.

However car insurance is usually a one-year policy, and insurance companies select assets that match their liabilities. Car insurance premiums are therefore invested in short-term securities that pay a low return. There’s no 20-year float for the insurance company to invest for long-term profits here.

Therefore the combined ratio for any car insurance policy needs to be below 100% for it to make a profit for the insurance company.

Car insurance is fairly predictable (compared to say insuring against hurricanes or terrorists) and the insurance company is likely to have a good idea of the total number of claims and expenses it will face in any particular year.

My research has found that a non-life insurance company might expect to have a combined ratio of 95% for car insurance policies, made up of a 70% claims ratio and 25% expense ratio. (My friends in insurance will bemoan this simplification, but we only need the rough figures to illustrate the point).

This means that if you are an average risk customer, every time you pay £100 in premiums for your car insurance:

You get £70 back in claims

It costs £25 for the insurance company to make it all happen

The company earns a £5 profit

In other words, you pay £30 for peace of mind for every £100 of insurance you buy.

Obviously you don’t get £70 back every year. In fact most of the time you get nothing back, because you don’t make a claim.

But when misfortune strikes, you get your £10,000 back.

Insure your car yourself

The point is that on average over a lifetime of buying insurance you would get £70 back for every £100 you spend on insurance.

That’s what the company’s combined ratio numbers tell us.

So the reason I don’t buy car insurance is that I don’t want to pay a guaranteed 30% to the insurance company (25% expenses plus 5% profit) if I think that over my lifetime I can afford to cover any potential losses myself when they arise.

Obviously it would stink to have my car stolen or damaged to the tune of the full £10,000.

However I see this as a risk I can afford to bear, not something I need to pay to protect against in advance.

Note: I do not think that I save the full £500 in annual car insurance. I think that I save the 30% difference between what I would have paid and the average claims that are made. I presume in my lifetime that I will have average luck, and eventually be faced with, for example, a £10,000 hit to replace my stolen car.

In my view the insurance company knows at least as much about my risk as buyer of insurance as I do. If it sets the average payout for me at 70% of a £500 policy then that is probably about right.

On average, over all the non-life insurance policies I don’t buy, I would expect to have a loss of £350 (70% of £500) on every £10,000 of ‘not insured stuff’ I own in any one year, and to have saved £150 by not buying insurance (30% of £500) to cover it.

The benefits of avoiding the insurance industry

It’s very important to realise that not buying insurance against things that we can afford to replace or have happen does not mean we think those things won’t happen.

It just means that instead of the bleed of constantly paying out small premiums to cover lots of things, we will instead expect to occasionally pay out larger sums when something does go wrong to replace those things we did not insure.

In the meantime, the money we would have been spent on insurance can be put into an emergency fund. There it can earn a return, and perhaps further reduce the financial impact of things going wrong.

Personally I also think the whole hassle of keeping track of insurance policies is a pain I would rather avoid.

I also seem to constantly hear stories about insurance companies that either fight claims or make claiming on a policy a huge headache.

Avoiding all this grief is an intangible benefit of not buying insurance.

Saving money on insurance can add up

Without being too scientific about it, adding up all the insurance I don’t buy – including life insurance – I personally save about £500 per year in expense ratio and insurance company profit by taking on the risks myself, instead of paying an insurance company.

Let’s assume I pocket this £500 saving every year for the next 30 years and invest it in the broader equity markets. If I generate a 5% real return on that money, my savings from not buying insurance over the three decades will amount to around £35,000 in today’s terms.

This is money that I have will then have, instead of it being in the insurance company’s pockets in 30 year’s time.

Remember, I am not assuming that I do not have accidents or that my car is never stolen in order to generate this £35,000.

I assume I’m at risk of those things exactly with the same probability that the insurance companies assume.

I pay for those unfortunate outcomes out of my own pocket – but I am still left well ahead.

When you should buy insurance

Investment advice typically has an “always seek expert advice” or “don’t try this at home” disclaimer attached.

Well, this time it really applies. Do not follow me blindly and cancel all your insurance policies tomorrow!

You should not save on insurance premium payments where you cannot afford the loss – and everyone is different in terms of what we can afford to lose.

  • Very few people could afford to lose their house in a fire, so they should always insure against this possibility.
  • Most people in countries without a national health service could not afford bad health situations and so should get health insurance – but it’s more finely balanced in the UK, where taxpayers already have the NHS.
  • Perhaps you personally can’t afford to have bad things happen to your car. If that case, you should insure against theft and damage, regardless of the fact that I don’t. Same deal with the potential theft of the contents of your home.

But most people can afford to lose their mobile phone, to cancel a flight or vacation, or to shoulder an increase in the price of their electricity bill. So I believe they should not insure against those things.

Over time having no insurance should save you quite a bit of money, and that should make you sleep better at night.

Perhaps you will also look after that mobile phone just a little bit more because it is not insured, which in turn will lower the risk that you inadvertently lose it.

What about life insurance?

There are many instances where life insurance makes sense.

If you are in a situation where your death or disability will cause unbearable financial stress on your descendants, then the premium you pay on these policies is worthwhile.

As with the example of car insurance, you should take out life insurance when you or your descendants can’t afford the loss.

Whether they can or not is obviously a highly individual thing, but bear in mind there is a tangible financial cost to that intangible peace of mind from insurance that many people cherish.

Insurance is expensive. Make sure it is worth it.

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

  1. If there was exactly 5% chance of receiving a £10,000 payment then that chance is worth £500. So if you pay £500 for say a 3% chance of claiming £10,000 then you’ve made a bad bet, whereas if that risk was 7% then paying £500 for it would be a good bet (your expected value would be 7% of £10,000 = £700).  []
{ 42 comments }