≡ Menu
My dad walked his own path, in work, in life, and in retirement.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have a dad like mine to teach them the value of money without opening their wallets, let alone at a stockbrokers.

And even fewer are lucky enough to realise their good fortune when they’re still able to thank him.

Some people’s parents teach them how to choose their first shares, or the power of compound interest. But when it came to money, my dad taught me more subtle lessons by his example.

My dad passed away 18 months ago after some upsetting medical problems, which means he’ll never now read this article that he inspired with his low-spending ways.

Instead, I hope sharing with you some of the things he taught me goes someway to thanking the fates for my good fortune.

1. You are not what you wear

In his own way, my dad would dress up for what he’d consider a special occasion.

Unfortunately for the more dress-conscious members of my extended family, almost no occasion was special enough.

True, Monday-Friday, 9-5 he wore the worn-in tie and jacket uniform of his generation of white collar workers.

But in the evenings or at weekends he’d don jeans with holes in them, jumpers with holes in the holes, and sometimes half in irony something awful on his head.

That didn’t matter when he was mending things, working in the garage or making furniture on demand for my mother – which was most of the time and exactly why he wore them.

And it didn’t really matter when he drove to collect my teenage cousin from her ballet classes in ever more comically awful clothes, just to embarrass her.

I grew up knowing that superficial appearances didn’t matter – it was what the person wearing the clothes did that was important.

And my cousin would now agree. The childhood horror has become an amusing anecdote.

It’s the memory of an uncle who went out of his way to keep her attending her ballet classes that endures.

2. Little moments matter most

Occasionally my dad claimed he’d quite like to spend money on a sports car but my mother “wouldn’t let him”.

I think just the idea of blowing money on something material was satisfaction enough.

In reality what mattered for him most throughout his life were tiny moments of experience – often with my mother, always with the family – and they very rarely cost much at all.

For instance, in their late 50s they got into hiking, and towards the end of this phase when both he and my mum had retired I got more insight into this mindset when he began using his newfangled mobile phone to send me text messages:

“Facing the Atlantic with the sun on our back and half our tea left. It doesn’t get better than this.”

or

“Eating fish and chips from the best takeaway in the world. Mum only ate half hers. Had to finish it off. It doesn’t get better than that.”

In the early days I questioned his verdict, and more than once wondered why he insisted on sharing these insights during hours when he knew I was at work.

Even typing that sentence – and knowing my dad – the answer is obvious.

The older I get, the surer I am of his judgement.

3. Nothing is ever broken

As a child of World War 2 – he was literally born amid the bombs of the Blitz – my father was raised against a backdrop of rationing and ruins.

Like many of his generation, he’d therefore been instilled with a ‘make do and mend’ mentality that in his case persisted after the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s that he shared in, too.

It helped that he was very handy – furniture repairs were easy, for instance, and he grew up fixing cars.

But he went further than that, recycling delivery palettes into garden fences, or turning the broken down brick wall the fence replaced into a rust-red paving for a BBQ area.

I might be giving the impression here that my parents lived in some sort of rural ruin held together by bits of string.

It’s true that some visitors were surprised to see old sinks recycled into plant pots or doors made into work benches in the 1980s. (In his later years my dad would claim he was green years before it was fashionable, rather than a tightwad, and that he was ahead of Gardener’s World in making this sort of thing trendy!)

But overall my parents lived better than they otherwise would have, in always lovingly cared for and (generally) pretty homes, by spending less money and instead being creative and finding a use for anything.

I can’t say I follow this maxim religiously. My own spin is more “make sure nothing is broken, then you won’t need to buy it again”. I’m notorious for showing a decade-old photograph to someone while wearing the same once-trendy T-shirt as in the picture.

I’m also clumsy with a screw driver, and I believe in the efficient division of labour in human society. I think it’s better for me to buy a rattan basket from IKEA for £3 rather than to learn how to weave one from reeds.

But I’ve eaten the big takeaway. Stuff has a value. Look after it.

4. Keep money in perspective

Given that I write a blog about money and investing, you might say that I’ve failed miserably to learn this lesson.

But the very fact that I’m writing right now is a testament to my dad’s example.

If I’d followed the path trod by many of my peers from college, I’d probably be being too busy in the corporate world doing something I hated to even dash off an email to my girlfriend, let alone wax lyrical about my father’s dubious jeans at 3pm on a Friday afternoon.

Indeed, I wasn’t even 30 before I downshifted and got out of the rat race to work as a freelance at hours and in places that suited me.

Often that’s meant longer hours for a time, and sometimes for less money.

But I’m my own boss, nobody can tell me what to do, and I make my own rules without the peer pressure of the typical office (one reason perhaps why I’ve found it easy to salt away 30% or more of my annual income).

It’s true I’ve probably capped my earning potential by deciding not to follow the carrot of an ever-higher salary up the career ladder.

But money is just money. Our days are too short to be ruled by it.

5. You must control your financial future

Hang on, didn’t I just say money was over-rated?

I did.

Of course I realise that money can mean almost everything if you haven’t got it, whereas in contrast having a lot of it can give you all kinds of possibilities.

But if you don’t put money in its place, you’ll never enjoy any of the riches you do make.

Equally, if you don’t realise that money is just a means and not an end, then when you’ve only got a little money you might be too distracted to appreciate the better things you want it for – to feed your family or to give your beautiful daughter new shoes. Don’t miss those unrepeatable moments.

It’s all too easy to see the candle and not the flame. We don’t live for money, we don’t remember it when we’re old, and we’d be better off in a world without it.

But that isn’t the world we live in – which is why I’m dedicated to saving and investing my way to financial freedom, while trying to keep a sense of perspective along the way.

And here my final lesson from my father was an unfortunate one.

The last lesson

Dad did exactly what he was supposed to – he shunned debt, paid off his mortgage, built up a relatively large pension, and ensured his family and my mother were adequately covered should the worst happen.

Yet when the worst did come calling – in a doctors’ surgery, in the form of a diagnosis that gave him less years than he expected but more than he wanted to spend at work – he didn’t feel able to immediately quit his day job because of the rules around his company pension.

As a result he had to work for more years than he wanted to, just to avoid big cuts to his retirement entitlements. (Even then he did retire before his time, and at some significant financial cost).

Happily my dad did get to enjoy some of the retirement he so looked forward to, although it was just a handful of years and nothing like enough. (A lesson delivered late in his life – take nothing for granted).

But what struck me about the entire experience was the lack of control he had over all the money he’d paid into his pension over the years. It was as big an investment as his house, yet he felt he had very little control over it.1

I decided that it wouldn’t be the same for me.

Explaining the different route I’ve taking would require more posts – an entire website – and my dad will never now see the results of the lessons I’ve learned from him, or know how grateful I am that I didn’t have the terrible role models other kids have for parents.

That’s one of my few regrets when I think about him.

Blame us for being British, but it never seemed right, when I could, to tell him in concrete terms about the extent of my investment portfolio, say, whereas I’d have had no problem showing him an expansive graveled driveway had I bought the house we so often debated (not that he’d have thought it was worth the money!)

I don’t think he worried about my financial future – but he never really understood it.

Still, I hope some day to be sitting on a cliff top somewhere, in the sun, financially independent and with someone I care about, and I’ll remember my frugal dad in his frayed jeans tucking into a slice of my mum’s cake like it was caviar on a blini, and I’ll toast him and everything he’s taught me.

  1. I say he felt he had little control, because it was never totally clear to me what he couldn’t do, and what he didn’t feel he could responsibly do and so blamed on the pension rules. []
{ 25 comments }
Share prices are set by smart fund managers and clever trading software.

One reason passive investing feels wrong to new investors is because people don’t want to “give all their money to a computer”.

I know, because they’ve told me so.

They typically haven’t analyzed algorithmic trading or weighed up the pros and cons of software versus grey matter.

They don’t know anything about any of that.

It’s just an instinctive thing.

Perhaps some family member picked shares or told them about a star fund manager that did well for them. Maybe they’ve read about Warren Buffett.

But usually it’s just another of those common sense things that trips people up when investing.

It’s common sense that a well-paid human being could avoid the Dotcom bubble or sell bank shares in a financial crisis. A computer can’t even read a newspaper!

A computer can’t appreciate the difference an inspirational leader like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk can make.

A computer doesn’t know about America’s shale gas boom, or the ageing population in China.

All a computer can do is look at the numbers and buy and sell. That’s one reason we have such volatile markets and booms and crashes, and why little investors get screwed over, et cetera.

Those are the sorts of arguments you hear – the latter ones often from more experienced investors, who really should know better.

But these views aren’t based on any evidence.

Most people haven’t read up on the algorithmic trading software used by hedge funds that can pick shares pretty well, on and off, nor have they seen the overwhelming data that neither human beings nor such ‘black box’ software can reliably beat the market for more than a few years, most of the time.

But it’s what they believe.

Chaos theory

These sorts of views are why index investing is a harder sell than those of who’ve seen the evidence expect.

We’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a new investor armed only with common sense.

When we try to explain why cheap passive portfolios will beat the majority of active investors, these fears are lurking in the background, unvoiced by the listener and forgotten by us.

So I had a light bulb moment when one friend of mine, M., put it into words.

After hours of discussion about investing over several days (she’d inherited an estate and asked me about it) she’d had enough:

“Index investing? Okay, I get it! Computers buying what is up and selling whatever is down? It’s random! It’s stupid! I’m not putting my family’s money into that, so can we please stop talking about it?”

To my friend, the stock market is a mass of numbers and an index fund chases them around the park.

Even if it might theoretically work, it doesn’t make sense to her.

Priced to go

Avoiding obscure or opaque things is actually a good guide to avoiding trouble when investing. The problem here was my friend’s knowledge was incomplete.

I must take some blame for that, because I’d clearly not explained well enough what a share price was, or why index funds work.

You see there’s nothing stupid about them.

On the contrary, they work because of all the brilliant human minds – and the clever computer software – that is constantly churning over every opportunity in the stock market.

Tens of thousands of the smartest people of their generation are raking over companies, looking for hidden advantages or drawbacks or other factors not reflected in their valuation.

When these managers think they’ve spotted something, they buy the shares – or sell them if they don’t like what they’ve found.

And who sells – or buys – these shares?

Another smart human being that also spends most of his or her working hours looking for such opportunities. Or a multi-million dollar stock trading robot that never sleeps at all.

When you buy or sell or a share, the other side doesn’t trade for any old price, either. They think they know something you don’t, or have under-appreciated. That’s why you have different views about the price worth paying.

And this is going on every fraction of a second. Millions of times an hour.

Which means the price you see in the market is the current ‘best guess’ according to the world’s greatest investors.

It’s very hard, if not impossible, to guess better.

Smart and cheap fund managers

Do you see why this is fabulous news?

Share prices aren’t pulled out of thin air. They move up and down as the smart money constantly reworks their valuation.

Excellent stock pickers have influenced the share price of every company in the FTSE 100. So when you buy shares via an index fund, you are taking advantage of all this brainpower at a very cheap price.

I explained this to M., and she had a bit of a light bulb moment, too.

She better understood what prices were, and that I wasn’t saying that fund managers were stupid. That offended her idea of humanity on some basic level, I think, as well as seeming unlikely given how well paid they were.

Certainly I am not saying they’re dumb. One reason index investing is the best option is because most fund managers are very smart.

Smart fund managers compete all day against other very smart people in an arm’s race that costs a fortune and that as a group they can’t win – because for every winner there’s a loser.

Hence it’s usually better just to get the average of their results as cheaply as you can via an index fund.

But there’s a but…

Is this index fund evangelism nirvana? Alas there’s a sting in the tail.

And M. still isn’t a committed believer.

Maybe that’s because I felt duty-bound to explain to her the flipside of having all the smartest brains in the room pricing the shares in her index fund.

It is true the best fund managers are doing legwork for you when you buy the whole market.

But unfortunately, you’re also getting input – via prices – from all the worst fund managers, too.

You’re also getting the mediocre managers, and the hundreds of thousands of retail punters making clueless decisions or day-trading away their savings.

Everybody is involved in setting share prices. That’s the catch.

Far more money is smart than stupid these days, which is why you rarely see the obvious bargains that littered the market in the 1950s anymore.

And it doesn’t matter anyway, in practical terms. The evidence is clear – most fund managers do not beat the market and you’re unlikely to pick those who do in advance, so you might as well buy an index fund.

But we knew that already.

It was just that for a moment, we had a way to convert the likes of my friend to the indexing cause by playing the ‘smart fund managers’ card like the best of them.

But investing is far too tricksy for that.

{ 12 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

I know some people get fed up with the endless praise heaped upon billionaire octogenarian Warren Buffett.

And there’s clearly a bit of a contradiction in a blog that champions passive investing giving props to a super stock picker.

But Buffett bashers better skip down to today’s links, because I am about to salute the man again – and his sidekick Charlie Munger.

In my defense, as regular readers will know I do actively invest for my sins (it’s my co-blogger The Accumulator who is 100% pure passive). And if you’re going to try the near-impossible, it’s best to study the greatest of magicians. (Or the best illusionists, if you prefer).

Secondly, Buffett is so consistently logical and far-sighted, I doubt he’ll ever be bested as the exception that proves the efficient market rules.

Buffett: Saviour of pensioners

This week Buffett was in the news after it was revealed that The Washington Post’s pension fund is $1 billion in surplus.

That’s a far healthier state than most big companies, and the fund’s robustness lies in the actions of former board member Warren Buffett, who laid out a rescue plan in the mid-1970s.

I suggest you read his ancient letter to CEO Katharine Graham (on Scribd as a PDF) for a refresher both on how pensions work, and also on Buffett’s thinking.

Buffett himself has said many times that most investors should use index funds. Larry Swedroe even cheekily exploited this for his book championing passive investing: Think, Act, and Invest Like Warren Buffett.

In the Graham memo on pensions – written in the mid-1970s, remember, when active investing was at its height and Bogle has barely got started with index funds – Buffett warned:

“If above-average performance is to be their yard stick, the vast majority of investment managers must fail.

Will a few succeed — due to either to chance or skill? Of course.

For some intermediate period of years a few are bound to look better than average due to chance — just as would be the case if 1,000 ‘coin managers’ engaged in a coin-flipping contest. There would be some ‘winners’ over a five or 10-flip measurement cycle.

(After five flips, you would expect to have 31 with uniformly ‘successful’ records — who, with their oracular abilities confirmed in the crucible of the marketplace, would author pedantic essays on subjects such as pensions.)”

I love that last bit. Buffett has always been a weird mix of humble and arrogant.

Munger did it in 2008

One criticism often made of Buffett – which may well be right, though I doubt it personally – is that he just happened to pick a style that worked for 50 years, and this lucky break made his fortune.

One reason I don’t agree with this theory is that Buffett changed his style several times over his career.

Another reason I don’t give it too much weight is that value investing still works for the few who can genuinely do it.

Indeed, in the US the SEC recently investigated a Californian legal publisher called The Daily Journal on the grounds that it was secretly a hedge fund.

The reason? The Daily Journal has two times as many assets in equities than it does in the usual assets you’d expect to see at a publisher.

Well, it turns out that another wrinkly investor has been at it, and this time it was none other than Buffett’s sidekick, Charlie Munger.

Munger is a director at The Daily Journal, for convoluted reasons buried in an old investment he made. The important bit for today, as Bloomberg reports, is that Munger has tripled the value of the publisher through money he deployed into stocks during the financial crisis:

“Two of the company’s directors, Charles Munger and J.P. Guerin, selected the securities which, given their experience and knowledge of investing, required very little time,” Daily Journal said in the letter.

“Also, there have been only purchases and no sales, so no time has been spent trading or ‘managing’ these marketable securities.”

They don’t make them like Buffett and Munger anymore.

[continue reading…]

{ 4 comments }

How to build a dividend portfolio

As if identifying promising dividend shares wasn’t tricky enough, knowing how to properly assemble the shares in a portfolio can be an even greater challenge.

How do we assemble dividend shares in such a way that we maximise their value and utility?

The good and bad news is that there’s not a single answer to this question, as much will depend on your unique objectives.

As such, the first order of business when building a dividend portfolio is – you guessed it – establishing your aims:

  • Is your primary goal dividend growth & capital appreciation, or is it to harvest high levels of current income?
  • Do you usually base your buy decisions on screening results or do you like to roll up your sleeves and research individual companies?
  • Do you want to passively or actively manage your portfolio?

Knowing the answer to these questions will help you evaluate what I consider the four broad approaches to dividend portfolio management.

Let’s briefly look at each turn.

1. Target yield approach

In this approach, you decide how much income you want the portfolio to generate this coming year, list the forward yields of the shares you’d like to include in the portfolio, and weight your holdings accordingly so that the average yield equals your desired income level.

Pros: It’s fairly straightforward and there’s a clear and quantifiable objective that can also serve as a guidepost when making future portfolio allocation decisions. When you’re looking to add fresh cash to the portfolio, for example, you can invest in such a way that your target yield is maintained.

Cons: First and foremost, it assumes that the dividends are sustainable and will be paid as expected. If you set your yield target too high and invest too much in ultra-high yield shares, there’s greater risk that one or more of the dividends could be cut, rendering the strategy less effective.

The target yield strategy can also be a bit short-sighted, with too much focus placed on near-term results at the expense of longer-term performance. And since higher-yielding shares tend to be found in only a few sectors (such as utilities and telecoms), you may be overexposed to certain industries.

2. Bucket approach

Divide the portfolio up into value, growth, high yield, and quality buckets and select shares that fit those categories.

Dividend.Portfolio.Bucket.Chart

The ‘value bucket’, for instance, may consist of shares with P/E ratios at least 15% below the market average, while the ‘quality bucket’ may only hold shares with high returns on equity and low leverage ratios.

Pros: The bucket approach forces you to focus on the type of shares you’re buying and helps you to avoid investing too much in one theme. You get to decide what qualifies for value, growth, high yield, and quality, so there’s a good amount of customisation available. As such, you can set up screens for each bucket that enable you to easily generate new ideas when needed or to know when it’s time to shift a share from one bucket to another.

Cons: Investors skilled at identifying shares within a particular theme (e.g. deep value or growth) may not feel comfortable buying shares that don’t fit their usual strategy. Consider that value investing legend Ben Graham wouldn’t likely have bought the shares that growth investing pioneer Philip Fisher liked, and vice versa. Investing outside of your specialty can result in sub-par performance.

3. Mechanical approach

A system of selecting shares and building a portfolio that’s primarily based on a specific screen or ranking system. The HYP method popularised by Stephen Bland and frequently discussed on Monevator is an example of this type of approach.

Pros: One of the great things about the mechanical approach is that it’s simple, consistent, and easy to put into practice. Just set up a screen based on a handful of financial metrics, rank the shares based on those metrics, and build a diversified portfolio of shares that score well in the screen. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Cons: A mechanical system that’s worked in the past may not work in the future. In other words, the parameters may be too rigid in a changing market environment. Also, if too much faith is placed on the screening results or the portfolio is managed too passively, you can overlook important red flags that might have been identified with a little sleuthing.

4. Custom approach

This is the freestyle version – select the best dividend paying shares you can find without adhering to a specific formula or strategy.

Pros: By definition this approach doesn’t have any hard-and-fast rules, so if you consider yourself a strong stock picker and aren’t concerned with generating a specific amount of dividend income, this might be the most attractive option.

Cons: Some parameters can be helpful when building a dividend-focused portfolio. Going in without a strategy can also result in poor decision-making in volatile markets.

At this point, you might be asking, “Couldn’t I just borrow a little from each approach?”

Absolutely you can! This is only meant to outline a few of the major schools of thought when it comes to dividend portfolio management. If you want to combine the bucket and target yield approach, for example, go for it!

How many shares is enough?

Investors building dividend portfolios are often concerned about being adequately diversified across industries – and for good reason – but I don’t think you necessarily need to own one or two shares from each industry to be properly diversified.

If you’re building a portfolio mainly of large cap shares, for instance, consider that larger companies are often internally-diversified. For example, Tesco has a bank division, GlaxoSmithKline has a consumer goods business, and Reckitt Benckiser has a pharmaceutical business. You might even be doubling up in certain sectors where you may not have meant to.

Also, if you’re not knowledgeable about a certain industry or morally-opposed to owning certain shares (e.g. tobacco, alcohol), you don’t necessarily need to have exposure to those sectors.

Personally, I’d rather own two stocks from an industry that I know inside-and-out than force myself to invest in an industry that I don’t know much about.

That said, I think you can have a diversified dividend portfolio with as few as seven large cap shares. If you’re including smaller companies in your portfolio, I believe that number will probably be closer to 20 given that many small caps have niche offerings.

Getting started

Whether you’re starting with a large lump sum or building your dividend portfolio one share at a time, the key is to go in with a strategy and objective in mind. The four portfolio management approaches outlined above will hopefully help get you started.

Please post any questions or comments below. It’d be great to hear how all you active dividend investors build and manage your own income portfolios.

Note: You can bookmark all The Analyst’s articles on dividend investing. The archive will be updated as new dividend articles are posted. The Analyst owns shares of Tesco, GlaxoSmithKline, and Reckitt Benckiser.

{ 31 comments }