≡ Menu

The first law of personal finance: Spend less than you earn

The first law of personal finance: Spend less than you earn

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

– Wilkins Micawber (David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens)

Were you to stick to just one New Year’s Resolution – and assuming “I will not kill again” is surplus to your personal requirements – then you could do a lot worse than vowing to spend less than you earn.

Living within your means is about the least sexy concept in personal finance, I know.

The magic of compound interest, the principle of risk versus reward – heck, even the Dr Who-ish sounding Time Value of Money – they all have a certain frisson.

But none of them adds up to a bean if more money goes out the door than you have coming in.

And that’s true regardless of your net worth, or the size of your monthly wodge.

One rule for everyone

Some think that watching the pennies is only a concern for people on the poverty line, Dickensian characters, or natural born tightwads.

They’re wrong. Spending less than you earn is as important when you’re rich as it is when you’re trying to get there – assuming you want to stay that way.

Just think of all the sports stars who’ve gone bankrupt, or the lottery winners who end up with nothing.

There are many ways to go broke, but persistently living beyond your means is the one that never fails. Anyone who’s seen Brewster’s Millions knows that even reckless investments occasionally pay off. But outgoings exceeding income is guaranteed to leave you with nothing.

You might be thinking those sports stars were retired, and hence their days of earning mega-bucks were behind them. Surely they had a licence to hoover up designer goods to ferry across town in the supercar that best fitted their mood?

As for the lottery winners: who wants to win a million to be freed from wage slavery, only to keep their spending to a few measly tens of thousands a year?

But that isn’t the right way to look at it. Not if somebody wants to stay wealthy.

Sports stars and lottery winners who give up work are no longer earning, but their capital can still earn for them. A sensible approach would be to figure out what inflation-adjusted annual income your loot can give you, and then live with those means, just like a wage earner.

Result, happiness!

How to start growing your fortune

The joy of spending less than you earn is it always leaves you with something.

An acorn. A spark. A bit of grit that you can grow into a pearl.

And that leftover money you have every month holds the key to your future financial freedom.

By saving and investing this surplus – by never spending more than you earn and so continually saving and adding a little more, and then a little more again – the daunting task of securing your financial security becomes nothing more onerous than a habit.

Yet the results can really add up. This is the bit where any decent financial writer busts out a compound interest calculator, and I’m not about to let the side down!

  • Invest just £200 a month from age 21 into the stock market and you might retire at 67 with a pot of over £400,000, in today’s money.1
  • Start late but put away your full ISA allocation of £960 a month from age 40 into a mix of shares and bonds, and you might end up with around £500,000 in today’s money.2

Or ignore me and choose instead to spend more than you earn. Then you will have £0 to save. And you will have £0 to invest.

Which whether you leave it for 21 years or 46 years or 100 years will still see you end up with a big fat £0.

Become an automatic millionaire next door

A great book to read to discover the power of this simple strategy is The Millionaire Next Door. It’s the result of a lot of research that shows that ordinary people often become rich over their lifetimes by spending less than they earn, and saving the difference.

What’s a good target? Up to you. Perhaps 10% of your earnings. If that seems impossible right now then maybe start with 5%, and try to save most of your pay rises from here.

Of course there’ll be a bit more to learn. For instance:

  • You’ll want to invest in very cheap passive funds to capture as much of the market’s return as you can.
  • You’ll want to decide whether an ISA or a pension – or both – is the best tax-sheltered way for you to save.
  • You’ll want to subscribe to Monevator to get occasional nagging reminders like this one to keep you on the straight and narrow.

Too boring? Want to start a business to make your millions? Invest some of your money in fast-growing companies? Build your own property empire?

Go for it! More power to you.

But whatever you do, spend less than you earn. Attempts to sidestep this simple rule (such as by borrowing to invest) have a poor track record of short-term success, and a guarantee of eventual failure.

That said, there’s one group who are allowed to splash the cash.

You’re over 75? Feel free to figure out how to sensibly spend the lot before you discover you can’t take it with you.

The rest of us? That’s what we’re aiming for!

  1. I’m assuming a 5% real return here. A real return is an inflation-adjusted return, so you can think of it in today’s money. This assumed rate of return is a smidgeon less than the average from UK shares over the very long-term. []
  2. I’m assuming a 3% real return here, a lower rate than in the previous example, to allow for the lower return potential of the bonds. []
{ 20 comments }

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q4 2013

The portfolio is up 11.85% in 2013.

It is time to execute our solemn duty and perform one of the most difficult tasks that any passive investor must face: rebalancing. Defying the screaming instincts of every nerve in our body we must cut our winners and embrace our losers.

The US may be up over 25% on the year, Japan over 23% and Europe over 20%, but no matter. We must trim back their rampant growth and cast the proceeds at UK Government bonds and Emerging Markets – 2013’s twin losers: down 3.20% and 9.43% respectively.

This act of financial self-flagellation demonstrates the iron discipline that passive investors require in the face of buoyant markets that are making even the humans look good, never mind the dart-throwing chimps.

The Slow and Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. It was set up at the start of 2011 with £3,000 and an extra £750 has been invested every quarter into a diversified set of index funds, heavily tilted towards equities. You can read the origin story and catch up on all the previous passive portfolio posts here.

It sounds wrong – and it definitely feels wrong – to back the losing team with more of our cash, but this is the behaviour that is hopefully laying the foundations for our long-term success.

The rocketing prices of developed world equities are likely to reduce their returns in the future. In the long run valuations are tied to the fortunes of the global economy. If prices go on a happy juice bender, driven by blissed out investors and gallons of quantitative easing, then eventually economic forces will snap them back to reality.

In other words, returns will eventually revert to the mean.

I have no idea if equities are overvalued (though the US is certainly well above its historical average) or when prices will snap back. But the historical record tells us that at some point it will happen.

And when it happens, we won’t be sitting on a portfolio that’s all in on the most overvalued portions of the market.

Rebalancing is the positive habit that boosts your immune system over the long term. It’s the mechanical conscience that forces us to be good; making us down the cod liver oil of the cheapest markets – the source of strong growth in the future as they recover.

Rebalancing also keeps us diversified. One reason we allocated 24% of our asset mix to government bonds was to ensure a buffer when equities do hit the skids. Right now, our bond allocation has sunk to 20%. Time to plump it back up.

We use Larry Swedroe’s 5/25 rule to trigger rebalancing moves when markets swing wild. We also rebalance annually back to our target asset allocations and that’s what’s driving the sales you’ll see below.

That said, you can channel new contributions to your underweight assets too, and a combination of the two techniques helps us to make a bond purchase that’s four times larger than usual.

Remember, we’re not bailing out of any asset – nobody knows which will perform next year. We’re just respreading our bets to prevent excessive concentration in any one area.

Scores on the doors

Before we make our new purchases, let’s tally the portfolio’s vital statistics.

  • The portfolio is three years old and is up 17.23% since we started. That’s a £1,938 gain on total contributions of £11,250.
  • It’s equivalent to an annualised gain of 8.5% over the three years.
  • The FTSE All-Share has gained 9.37% annualised in the same time period.

Our portfolio has lagged the All-Share because of our allocation to government bonds and because our later drip-fed contributions haven’t benefitted from the market’s near relentless rise over the entire three years. A lump sum dropped in three years ago would have done better but that’s the way it goes.

Here’s the portfolio lowdown in spreadsheet-o-vision:

Up, up and away

This snapshot is a correction of the original piece. (Click to make bigger).

In another piece of good cheer, our funds have paid out more than £125 in dividends this quarter, although every single penny is invested straight back into growing our accumulation funds, so we benefit from compound interest.

Now, we have two final pieces of annual maintenance to attend to.

First, we shift our target asset allocation by 2% every year from equities to bonds. As our time horizon diminishes (only 17 years left!) we practise the time honoured ritual of lifestyling – reducing our exposure to volatile assets as we get older and have less time on our side.

Hence we’re shaving 1% each from Japan and the Pacific in favour of a now 26% allocation to bonds.

Finally, we need to think about inflation. We started off investing £750 every quarter at the start of 2011. Three years later and £750 ain’t what it used to be.

We should now be investing around £827 to punch at the same weight, so let’s jack that up to £850 as I haven’t been conscientious about matching inflation so far and this investing lark seems quite fruitful after all.

New transactions

Every quarter we attempt to appease Mr Market with another £850. Our cash is divided between our seven funds according to our asset allocation.

However, this quarter I had to top up the UK and Pacific fund purchases as they didn’t comply with Charles Stanley Direct’s £50 minimum contribution for regular investing. I did this by shaving off £72 from the bond purchase. It’s not a perfect solution but then little is.

UK equity

Vanguard FTSE U.K. Equity Index Fund – OCF 0.15% (Stamp duty 0.5%)
Fund identifier: GB00B59G4893

New purchase: £50.66
Buy 0.2611 units @ 19403.7p

Target allocation: 15%

Developed World ex UK equities

Split between four funds covering North America, Europe, the developed Pacific and Japan1.

Target allocation (across the following four funds): 49%

North American equities

BlackRock US Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.17%
Fund identifier: GB00B5VRGY09

Rebalancing sale: £269.88
Sell 204.6114 units @ 131.9p

Target allocation: 25%

OCF has gone down from 0.18% to 0.17%

European equities excluding UK

BlackRock Continental European Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.18%
Fund identifier: GB00B83MH186

Rebalancing sale: £10.32
Sell 6.3098 units @ 163.6p

Target allocation: 12%

Japanese equities

BlackRock Japan Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.18%
Fund identifier: GB00B6QQ9X96

Rebalancing sale: £136.61
Sell 103.5719 units @ 131.9p

Target allocation: 6%

Pacific equities excluding Japan

BlackRock Pacific ex Japan Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.24%
Fund identifier: GB00B849FB47

New purchase: £50.55
Buy 24.7181 units @ 204.5p

Target allocation: 6%

OCF has gone down from 0.22% to 0.21%

Emerging market equities

BlackRock Emerging Markets Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.28%
Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £302.76
Buy 291.9585 units @ 103.7p

Target allocation: 10%

OCF has gone up from 0.28% to 0.29%

UK Gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.15%
Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

New purchase: £862.85
Buy 6.8840 units @ 12534.15p

Target allocation: 26%

New investment = £850

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.25% per annum

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

Take a look at our online broker table for other good platform options. Look at flat fee brokers if your ISA portfolio is worth substantially more than £20,000.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.18%

If all this seems too much like hard work then you can always buy a diversified portfolio using an all-in-one fund like Vanguard’s LifeStrategy series.

Other asset allocation options include adding a high-grade corporate bond fund, an index-linked bond fund, BlackRock’s Global Property tracker and replacing the four developed world funds with Vanguard’s FTSE Developed World index fund. You could also use Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. You can simplify the portfolio by choosing the do-it-all Vanguard FTSE Developed World Ex-UK Equity index fund instead of the four separates. []
{ 48 comments }

Weekend reading: An obituary for long-term thinking

Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

There are writers I include nearly every week in these roundups. Clever or articulate or both, I could feature any of their missives as my post of the week.

Morgan Housel of the Motley Fool US would be the lead guitarist of this band. Perhaps even lead singer on current form (though he might have to share a mic.)

His latest, a mock obituary on The Death of Long Term Thinking, is a beauty:

Long-Term Thinking died on Tuesday. His last true friend, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, was at his side. He was 213 years old.

Long-Term Thinking lived an illustrious life since the start of the Industrial Revolution, when for the first time, people could think about more than their next meal. But poor incentives and the rise of 24/7 media chipped away at his health. The final blow came Monday, when market technician Ralph Acampora warned that a 10% market pullback — which has occurred on average every 11 months over the last century — could be “devastating” for investors. […]

Long-Term Thinking endured the Great Depression, world wars, and spiking interest rates in the 1980s. But the last five years proved too much, as he fought for relevance with cable news, Twitter, and derivatives. He was hospitalized in May 2010 after pundits lost their collective minds over a “flash crash” that made a few stock prices freeze up for 17 minutes.

“Computers froze for seventeen minutes and they literally think American industry vanished,” Long-Term Thinking told his psychiatrist. “These people are insane.”

The article continues in that vein, and I wish I’d written it.

[continue reading…]

{ 8 comments }
Investing debate: Passive versus active investing

The Investor and The Accumulator rain death blows upon each other as they grapple for supremacy of the investing universe. Catch up on Episode I and Episode II, then read on as The Investor tells us why he fears not the market…

The Accumulator has just asked him why he thinks he has investing “edge”?

The Investor: Hah! Well to answer your question literally, I think I have an edge because I have the same faulty brain chemistry as everyone else, and thus have the personal exceptionalism bias, or whatever it’s called. (I’m sure you’ll remember…!)

Primarily, I guess I don’t think I do have an edge as much as I think most others don’t. If most other investors do worse than a few, than the few can win.

So to turn to the opposition: private investors first.

Obviously I don’t know every private investor out there, and have in fact only been exposed to a small subset through either real-life or through virtual forums. Some sound very good and plausible. But the majority of even the better sounding ones definitely exhibit, in my experience, what Oaktree’s Howard Marks calls first-level thinking – they think the obvious and forget the extent to which everyone else could also be thinking the obvious.

Instead, an active investor needs to think of the obvious and what everyone else thinks about the obvious (and why). And they also need to consider what the smart second-level thinkers think, so we’re onto third-level thinking, and so on.

Now, you might argue that even second- or third- or ninth-level thinking is (a) increasingly unreliable with each derivative and (b) discounted somewhere else by the market, and I’d agree it probably is.

But I’m pretty sure most of the amateur opposition doesn’t go much further than first-level thinking.

Note: I’m not even counting the downright bad stock pickers I regularly come across, who barely seem to engage in first-level thinking, who can’t do sums, who don’t read up on their companies, who over-trade, blindly follow tips, and so forth. They’re a huge bunch, too. Naturally they can win like dart-throwing monkeys – i.e. by luck – but obviously I wouldn’t bet on it.

What about the pros? When it comes to mainstream funds, I think a lot of them are constrained by issues such as benchmarking, herd mentality, and career risk.

In fact I’d say career risk is the biggest issue for them. It’s far safer to fail slightly than to fail big trying to win big, whether it be through stock selection, sector selection, market timing or anything else. They are incentivised as much not to lose as to win, in any given year.

The whole industry is structured that way. Hence the preponderance of those closet indexers – supposedly actively managed funds that basically mimic the market but charge investors much higher fees than our beloved true trackers.

In contrast, as a private investor I can buy what I like, go in and out of cash as I choose, and invest anywhere unconstrained by being told it’s not in some index or another. I can lose 50% of my money on a share and nobody needs to know.

Another group that sounds like are hedge funds, and it’s true they can do these things, too. But if they’re any good then hedge funds usually scale quickly to become lumbering and then are often just as inclined to keep assets as to keep trying to win as the traditional vanilla active funds we’re all more familiar with.

They also rapidly get shut out from the asset classes most likely to reward good judgement (if it exists) or most likely to offer higher return premiums (e.g. small cap value). And after all that they need to do well enough to pay for their eye-watering fees…

Then you have the passive crowd, who by definition aren’t playing.

So in my mind that’s a lot of the competition doing sub-optimal things.

Of course, the pros do have researchers and analysts and direct-market access and investigative journalists and the ability to lever up / down at will and so on and so on. Who knows if that negates the hopes I cling on to of a relative edge?

What about me? Am I wired differently?

Here I can say that I have evidence that I am. All my life I’ve been a bit different, have tended to offend by accident, am argumentative [I can vouch for this! – TA], am happy to hold unpopular views, and I’m not overtly emotional. I think all those things help.

I am also a bit OCD, in the correct (if very mild) sense of the term.

Since getting into investing, it’s the main thing I do. Other potential money-spinning ventures have largely gone by the wayside. I regularly read company reports at midnight, and check the latest stock market news at 7am, and thumb through investing books with my bacon sandwiches on a Sunday morning.

Is any of that enough to have an edge? Perhaps not. Perhaps the opposite. But that’s partly why I think I might.

I am not left-handed

The Accumulator: Wall St whistleblower, Charles Ellis, author of Winning The Loser’s Game said, “Don’t confuse facts with feelings.”

I hope you do have an edge, I really do, I’m kind of taken by your notion of your nippy little speedboat weaving under the guns of the ponderous battleships of Big Finance. But I don’t buy it – it’s too romantic. I’m glad you’re taking the risk, not me.

I think the bulk of private investors pulling shapes on The Motley Fool are neither here nor there. It’s the pros who account for the majority of the flows and that’s who we’re up against.

There are thousands of them out there and Lars Kroijer describes in detail their superior firepower: the astonishing access to information, analysts and computing power, and their first-name familiarity with the senior management of the stocks they follow. That section of Lars’ book is a fascinating insight into the enemy camp and it’s scary.

It’s interesting that you suggest fund managers are incentivised as much not to lose as to win… If the professionals have come to recognise that the best way to succeed is to collect the market return then maybe that tells us something? Sure, the private investor can lose big and only they need know, but they’ve still lost big! They’d probably be better off if they sacked themselves.

The paradox is that none of us can know until it’s too late. You need 20 years of results to prove you’re an investing ninja, by which time it’s too late if you’ve misjudged yourself. Again, it’s about the balance of risks.

I think it’s telling that many private investors don’t accurately measure their returns and costs over the long-term – why spoil the dream?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I definitely think you’re wired differently from most. Your resolve in the face of the cutest puppy amazes me.  Your intellectual ability and investing knowledge is enviable. These traits set you apart from Main Street. I’m not sure you stick out so much in the City though.

That said, should you hit the jackpot, do remember I’ve supported you all the way. 100%. 😉

I am not left-handed either

The Investor: Thanks for the kind words – although I know you know me well enough that “you’re wired differently from most” is not entirely a compliment in my case. 😉

And I know the City is full of smart cookies. Doubtless many with (even! 😉 ) more intellectual firepower than me, but crucially I’m not sure that’s really what’s required once you can tie your own shoelaces and use a search engine.

All that said, I really wouldn’t be too in awe of the professionals. I’m not.

This article by Morgan Housel, for example, shows how useless analysts are when it comes to calling stocks. Now granted, analysts are screwed over by different incentive problems, career risk issues and behavioural biases than fund managers, but same sausage.

I’m heartened to read in Housel’s article that anyone following analysts would have done better by literally betting on the opposite of all their predictions, in aggregate. Many of these guys only follow a handful of stocks, in one sector, and they still can’t get it right, with all their money, research departments, water coolers, and lunchtime briefings with management.

You see that as daunting, and it is because it shows how hard it is. But it doesn’t show the professionals are any better than me at picking shares that will do better than other shares. Not to me, anyway.

Please don’t misunderstand – I think the pros are fearsome competitors. Your nautical parallels are nice, but the image that actually sprang to my mind was that scene from Terminator set in the future, where dozens of giant killer robots stalk a barren landscape, using flood lights and powerful weapons to zap the puny human resistance.

I’m not driving one of the robots in this image! But, equally, the puny human resistance lingers on…

Still, the horrible truth, as you correctly diagnosed last summer, is that I am addicted to this and probably would do it regardless. I think I have a good crack at beating the market, from what I know about myself and some clues from results to date.

To that end I’ve sent you some bits and pieces for trust and verification purposes, but I don’t want us to go down the road of printing numbers here. I won’t say I’m too humble (you won’t fall for that!) but (a) I don’t want to encourage people – I genuinely believe most people are better off in tracker funds, as I stressed at the start of our conversation – and (b) my longer-term returns data is as statistically robust as a Mori poll about promiscuity taken in a convent and (c) it could all be, until the day I die, luck.

Do I have an edge, or do I just have an addiction?

I am not sure. I don’t lose any sleep worrying about whether I’m taking an excessive risk (beyond the general risks of investing in shares and so on) by trying to add alpha, but I do spend fretful hours now and then wondering if it’s bad for my being.

We only get one life, and investing has become a bit of an obsession. The novel is looking even more unwritten than that of the average going-to-write-a-novel would-be novelist. Heck, I don’t even read novels anymore. I read annual reports. I don’t settle down or have kids – I churn my portfolio.

I don’t know if this is terribly sad, or if I’m lucky to have found a passion. I don’t really care about money the way a lot of people do. But I like loving something that I do, and I like keeping score.

Ultimately, as I said at the start, this is the reason why I actively invest. I will agree after all our chat that the possibility I might beat the market is clearly in the mix, but I still think it’s a means, not an end, for me. Which is pretty much the opposite of how it works for most people, for financial services, and probably for common sense.

In summary, please don’t worry about me. Edge or not, I’ll be fine. I think I’ve seen signs that I’ll do better managing my own money than any alternative, but the fancy word for clues that gamekeepers use to hunt deer is spoor, and spoor is basically sh*t. Which is about what those signs are worth so far, statistically speaking, and about what I’ll give if I end up 50% down from where I might have been if I’d never tried at all.

It’s only money.

All the best and Merry Chrismas!

The Investor

I would as soon destroy a stained-glass window…

The Accumulator: You are lucky to have found a passion. Passion is the most sustaining force of any human life. It can drive us on to great things. Whether you are lucky your passion is investing… we’ll find out in 20 years!

You quoted ISA millionaire John Lee recently:

In my view, to be a successful investor requires commitment and time, and you’re only going to put in the required effort if you find the stock market enjoyable and absorbing.

To be blunt, either you fall in love with investing – its fascination and its mysteries – or you don’t. You will know soon enough which it is.

This perhaps crystallises the difference between us. I enjoy it, but I don’t love it. I am comforted in my choice by the weight of evidence, academic research, and wisdom marshalled by the superstars on my team. You have a long shot at stupendous success and a slam dunk at doing something you love.

The important thing is that our choices square with who we are – investor know thyself – and I think you do.

Well, I feel like a British Tommy who’s just played an enjoyable score-draw with his Pickelhaubed Hun adversary in No-Mans-Land. It’s time to shake hands and withdraw to our respective trenches while the strains of Silent Night drift across the blasted field.

This is one struggle that won’t be over by Christmas, but I wish you a happy one all the same.

The Accumulator 

{ 48 comments }