≡ Menu

Gruel Britannia, but what about her investors?

With GDP downgraded, Britons feel poorer than ever.

I wasn’t even able to enjoy George Osborne’s miserable 2011 Autumn Statement with a dash of schadenfreude.

The forecast for UK GDP growth has been lowered to less than 1% for both 2011 and the 2012. I can’t pretend I foresaw such a dramatic downgrade.

True, it’s been nearly two years since I correctly called Britain’s exit from recession, in stark contrast to invariably gloomy pundits elsewhere.

Yet even then I concluded…

Growing public and private debt will constrain consumption and tame future expansion. We’re richer now than we expected to be 12 months ago, but we’ll be poorer in five years than you might imagine.

… which sounds about right today.

I also thought markets would rise – which they did for a while – and predicted higher inflation. It’s over 5%, so I’ll take that as a win, too.

My big miss was on UK government bonds, where I expected gilt yields to rise and that – together with inflation – to send interest rates higher.

Not so far! As it’s turned out, UK government bonds have been a superb investment as yields have steadily fallen. And they’ve been much less choppy than shares.

You can bank on bankers

The truth is I was looking for a return to sustainable growth to drive the key variables I just cited, whereas what we’ve had is more like gentle stagflation.

Partly that’s down to the bludgeoning of embattled animal spirits by a succession of further shocks. In particular, I thought Europe would sort itself out sooner than it has.

I believe Europe has what’s required to deal with its problems. Don’t believe the hype! Italy, as a nation, is loaded. Germany is the sovereign equivalent of Rich Uncle Monty from Withnail and I.

But while its members tussle to discover if that’s true, Euro zone fear has hit all the banks hard (even the UK ones) and confidence has seeped away, which has compounded my bigger error – I underestimated the impact of financial deleveraging.

It’s ironic that having bemoaned the UK credit bubble for many years and predicted its messy end (though I certainly didn’t foresee the US epicenter, nor the exotic machinations), I’ve been too optimistic about how quickly we can return to ‘normal’ (whatever that means).

I partly blame the bankers. It turns out bankers, in aggregate, are even more valueless than I’d previously given them (very little) credit for.

For most of the past decade, they’d lend millions to anyone with an Irish accent and a building site. They geared their banks up to a level that would make a card shark wince.

Now, though, they’re hoarding money like Ebenezer Scrooge caught short at a misers’ convention. Financing for everything from houses to investment to factories has vanished, even for those who look a good credit risk. Today you have to be a great one.

I suspect most of the old-fashioned bankers who actually knew how to assess a loan were long ago put out to pasture. Instead, today’s rocket scientist bankers spend their days trying to figure out how to game capital ratios, and not making very much money for their employers. Meanwhile their prop trading desks have been unmasked as directional punts on the herd (or simply fantasists, in light of fraud at UBS and Societe Generale).

Why we as a society (and as shareholders) still pay these bozos billions more than they deserve for the measly value they add (in aggregate) is for another day.

The point here is that their excessive profits puffed up UK GDP even higher than we previously thought in the boom.

Now the tide has gone out, we’re even more pasty and skimpily-clad than we’d feared.

Unemployment benefits nobody

Bankers would say deleveraging is a problem for society as a whole. Some might even add that excessive debt got us into this mess.

Which is pretty rich, but true.

While I think bank lending is more subdued than it needs to be – I’d happily borrow £1 million today at 4% if I could get it – there’s no doubt many households need to pay off what they’ve already wracked up. With falling house prices outside of London cutting off the other main supply of fantasy money, consumer spending will be stifled for years to come.

While some will lose out more than others, clearly it’s not going to be a great time to be a worker in Britain. Hundreds of thousands more public sector workers are going to be dropped now we’ve belatedly realised we can’t afford them, and their pay is falling fast in real terms, which may be good news for the UK in the long term, but is terrible for the individuals concerned, as well as for GDP and the job market.

Blogger and Monevator reader ermine has posted some comprehensive stuff on dealing with these dark times, writing:

It’s time to get a personal finance tin hat – you need to electively choose to start living on less that your income even if it means doing without things, so you have space to deal with this loss of purchasing power. There’s no point in burying your head in the sand – deal with reality, otherwise reality will deal with you in its own way.

You might also read The Accumulator’s thoughts on cutting spending where it matters least to you.

Whether the government should also be quite so obsessed with its timetable for austerity, given the tiny interest rates it currently pays, is another matter.

I’m not suggesting we don’t need to hack down our debt over a reasonable timeframe and get away from the previous culture of higher taxes and higher public sector spending.

But surely now is the best time to invest in high impact infrastructure, like new railway connections and energy supply, as well as more social housing? Bold and targeted government action could create far more jobs now, when they’re needed, and many of the assets, especially housing, could be sold off in better times.

I’d far rather my taxes went on that than on higher unemployment benefit bills – let alone the other nonsense we still spend too much on.

Don’t bet on GDP

From the standpoint of a private investor, too, I also maintain that panicky action would be a mistake.

While things look dark for Blighty PLC, some of the measures being taken – such as the modestly higher infrastructure announced by Osborne – might help certain UK companies.

I wrote the other day about why housebuilders might make attractive investments, for example. Admittedly it’s already harder to see house price inflation taking off anytime soon, but interest rates also look even less likely to go up. And my main point was housebuilders are already making profits on today’s much lower volumes and prices.

More importantly for investors, though, national GDP growth has been shown to be a very poor predictor of that country’s stock market returns. The lowered outlook for the UK therefore doesn’t say diddly about what to expect from the FTSE.

I plan to write more about GDP growth and equity returns, but here’s a taster of the reasons behind the lack of correlation:

  • GDP estimates national output, whereas listed company output comprises just a subset of output
  • UK listed companies get most of their sales overseas, anyway
  • Slow growth usually means interest low rates (good for shares) and little pressure on wages (good for margins)
  • Companies may also be more careful with their cash, reducing wastefulness and empire building
  • In contrast, investors get over-enthusiastic in the good times, bidding up multiples to earnings

The last point, valuation, is the critical one. Buying when shares look cheap to fairly-valued (like now, in my view) is much more important than buying when higher GDP growth – or smiling UK politicians – makes it feel good to do so.

UK companies are doing fine, on the whole. They have low debt, and the amount they pay out as dividends is already back above crisis levels. And on a P/E rating of around about 10, they’re still good value.

{ 12 comments }

Are BlackRock index trackers cheap?

The uproar over the new Hargreaves Lansdown fees imposed on index trackers has brought into focus a relatively obscure tracker fund family that potentially offers a fee-dodging workaround.

A number of Monevator readers have alighted on the BlackRock Collective Investment Funds (CIFs) as a cheaper alternative for passive investors who want to stay with Hargreaves Lansdown but who are being punished by flat-rate fees on small portfolios.

The BlackRock CIF index trackers are free of Hargreaves Lansdown’s platform fees. And as they supply two to three times the commission paid by HSBC index funds, things might just stay that way for the foreseeable.

BlackRock trackers may be cheaper for some small investors on Hargreaves Lansdown

The workaround

The smaller your fund holdings the more likely it is that the BlackRock index trackers will work out more cheaply for you. Here’s the logic:

HSBC FTSE All-Share Index fund TER = 0.27%
Platform fee = £24 per year

BlackRock UK Equity Tracker Class A TER = 0.57%
Platform fee = £0

The HSBC fund has the cheaper TER but its platform fee means the breakeven point for annual costs between the two funds is £8,000.

X% + 0.27% = 0.57% (i.e. the same TER as the Blackrock Tracker fund)

Therefore X% = 0.3%

Platform fee is £24 a year, so breakeven fund size is…

£24/0.3% = £8,000

Which all goes to show that if your HSBC FTSE All-Share fund is worth less than £8,000 then you’ll pay an annual cost that’s higher than the 0.57% burden of the equivalent BlackRock fund.

Not so fast

Of course, it’s not so simple. Not by a long chalk, my friends. There’s an additional cost to pay every time you trade the BlackRock tracker funds in the shape of the bid-offer spread.

Just like with foreign currency, you pay a higher price to buy the funds and get a lower price if you sell them, while a grinning middleman pockets the difference.

As I write, the spread for the BlackRock UK Equity Tracker Class A fund is a yawning 5.57%! Normally, if you buy a fund for 5.57% more than you can sell it, then you are instantly down 5.57% on the deal.

But happily this isn’t yet another case of legalised banditry by the financial services industry: the situation is not as bad as it seems.

BlackRock tracker funds are subject to an initial charge of 5% and this shows up in the buying price as the main chunk of the spread.

Now, an initial charge is the kind of legalised banditry that passive investors should never stump up for – but Hargreaves Lansdown kindly rebates the whole 5% on the BlackRock funds.

The remaining 0.57% spread is still a pretty fat one to pay though. It’s the kind of bid-offer gulf I’d expect from an emerging market ETF rather than a UK equity fund.

Does the spread put the kybosh on a switch to BlackRock tracker funds? It depends on:

  • How often you trade
  • The size of the spread for that fund when you trade (it might be less than 0.57% that day)

BlackRock have published estimated spreads for their CIF tracker funds on page 10 of the simplified prospectus. Look for the A Class funds.

You can calculate how the spread affects your own situation by using a fund cost comparison calculator. Input the spread as an initial charge (leaving out the discounted 5% portion).

Between a BlackRock and a hard place

Even if the calculations swing in favour of a move, make sure you do your research. Especially look out for:

  • Which index your new fund tracks. The BlackRock tracker funds aren’t necessarily following the same index as your existing funds.
  • How well does each fund track the index? Tracking difference could easily wipe out the sliver of costs you save by switching.

The BlackRock tracker funds certainly open up new possibilities for UK passive investors but they’ve got more wrinkles than an elephant’s leg. Go here for a Monevator botox injection.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 8 comments }

Weekend reading: Other people’s earnings revealed

Weekend reading

Stay on top of the money web.

Other people’s salaries are an enduring subject of interest, and rarely for good reason. Happiness does not lie in the way of discovering your best friend from University makes twice what you do, however much you try to eschew such trifles.

Call me petty – someone always does – but it’s a scientific fact that most people are happier earning slightly more than their friends, as opposed to a lot more than strangers.

For this reason I’d suggest The Guardian‘s huge recounting of the ONS’ annual bonanza of salary statistics should come with a health warning.

It might be fun to discover a dentist makes £60,098, slightly more than an air traffic controller on £56,800, but if you’re a humble ‘broadcasting associate professional’ on £40,000 and your dentist sister married an air traffic controller, you could have the hump at Christmas.

I can’t help being amused that it’s The Guardian that has printed these findings. If Daily Mail readers enjoy getting indignant over some strumpet flaunting her stuff at Ascot, there’s nothing that piques a Guardian reader like another person’s salary.

(Hmm, there go half our subscribers from across the political spectrum in just one paragraph!)

Incidentally:

The gross median full-time salary in the UK for the year ending April 2011 was £26,244, up 1.4% year on year. Overall though, once part-time workers are included, median salaries increased by just 0.5%.

The total number of full-time workers fell by 380,000 in 2011, with 72,000 more part-time employees reflecting the shift for many towards part-time work.

With inflation still running above 5% and the house price inflation ATM on the blink across most of the UK, it adds up to the tightest squeeze for decades.

Here’s that link again to The Guardian article.

Blog articles about money and investing

Deal of the day: Half the people I know seem to be reading A Game of Thrones. The four-book boxed set is just £18.84 on Amazon, which is £1 cheaper than the Kindle edition – and both are 50% off the high street price.

Mainstream media money

  • The Euro zone: Is this really the end? – The Economist
  • UK houses 20% over-valued, but look at Belgium! – The Economist
  • Investment trusts have beaten the market with less risk – Motley Fool
  • Neuro-economics: Brains vs Keynes – Slate
  •  Hedge funds are deep into ETFs… – Institutional Investor
  • …perhaps that’s why they track the market – WSJ (and Salmon)
  • …yet people still clamour to get into them! – FT
  • The funds facing Hargreaves Lansdown’s platform fee for first time – FT
  • Mark Dampier of HL defends modern fee structure / transparency – FT
  • Synthetic ETFs face uncertain future – FT
  • Firm aims to clawback £10,000 in trail commission – FT
  • Enjoy an income from investment in infrastructure – Telegraph
  • £32,700: What a family needs to earn to get by – Telegraph
  • Average pension fund trades entire portfolio every 9 months! – Telegraph
  • Japanese market seems cheapest for 20 years – Independent

Want more of these? Subscribe to get them every weekend!

{ 4 comments }

Buy shares in house builders, not new build houses

House builders in action, as captured by Jacob Lawrence

The government has revealed a new plan to get more houses built – and to enable more of us to buy them.

But I think it’s better news for shares in house builders than for the young, would-be home-owning masses.

Theoretically, first-time buyers will benefit from the new scheme to get the market for 95% mortgages going again.

The plan will see the government acting as guarantor of high loan-to-value mortgages, in conjunction with house builders, as The Independent reports:

The Government will underwrite a small percentage of each loan on newly built property. Banks are typically demanding a deposit of 20 per cent on loans to first-time buyers and, by guaranteeing a portion of the loan, the Government will in effect be shifting that “loan-to-value” ratio so that the borrower needs a smaller deposit – possibly as little as 5 per cent.

That, it hopes, will lead to more demand and provide a boost to the construction industry in terms of sales and employment.

As I understand it, the government is proposing that in order to achieve a 95% loan-to-value mortgage, a house builder would contribute say 3.5% of the property price and the government another 5.5%.

Together they’d be putting up 9% of the purchase price. Therefore to grant a buyer with a 5% deposit a mortgage, the lender would only need to put up 86% of the purchase price (100-9-5 = 86%).

With banks still hoarding all the cash they can, that’s a much more attractive deal for them than having 95% of their capital at risk.

High loan-to-value mortgages mean big risks

As a potential home buyer, however, the first thing to note is it’s you – not the government – who is first in line for losses should you sell your house for less than you paid for it.

I think that’s only right – a scheme protecting buyers 5% deposits would be untenable, giving a free option on house price rises.

Still, it’s likely to be misunderstood by some people. I remember that when so-called Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees (MIG) were in vogue in the 1990s – before reckless banks stopped bothering to account for the extra risks of high loans – there was little clarification in the mortgage documentation that the MIG protected the lender, not the person paying it.

But a more important question is whether new home owners should actually be risking taking out a 95% mortgage on a new build property, even as prices stagnate across much of the UK.

New build houses generally have a premium price, which lasts about as long as the leathery smell of a new car before they start depreciating.

Banks therefore don’t like lending 95% against the value of a new build property, for the very sound reason that any particular aggregation of laminate flooring and beech kitchen units is unlikely to be worth quite as much again until house price appreciation papers over that lost premium.

And outside of prime London, house price appreciation is notable by its absence.

While I understand the frustration many feel at not being able to buy a home, taking out a 95% mortgage on a new build property that the government is effectively bribing banks to lend on seems a risky way to go about it.

Buying the shortage of houses

Given the new climate of financial responsibility, it seems strange that the government wants to encourage high loan-to-value mortgages just a few years after the collapse of Northern Rock.

A cynic might say it amounts to State-sponsored negative equity!

A few years ago I would have suspected it was all part of a ruse to prop up high house prices. But having been repeatedly humbled by the strength of the London housing market – easily my most costly financial misjudgement – I’m nowadays less cocksure about the path of house prices.

Specifically, I now accept that there’s a structural shortage of homes for people to buy.

Note that’s subtly different from saying there’s a lack of places to live in. While rents have increased in the past couple of years as up to one million people have had to rent a home who would previously have bought a house, I’m not convinced there’s not enough rooms with beds in them for the UK population.

I now agree though that there’s probably a lack of properties that people want to buy, in the places that people want to live.

And while you might argue market forces should be the best way to fix this, I’ve come to the view that there are structural reasons why this isn’t happening.

Some evidence for this is the difference between the path of prices in the US and the UK.

Both countries experienced booms – indeed ours was much bigger – and both have seen new housing ‘starts’ derailed in the recession. In both countries mortgage holders have benefited from cheap money, too (at the expense of prudent savers, but that’s another issue).

Yet whereas US prices have fallen back to more sustainable levels in most areas, in the UK prices still seem stuck above both historical price-to-earnings ratios, and also higher than many pundits would have predicted given the low turnover of property.

The rise in the cost of renting – while clearly egged on by an influx of thwarted first-time buyers – also indicates that at the least there’s not a surplus of houses sitting empty.

All this was pretty much outlined in the much-cited Barker review of 2004, but I have to admit I was an avowed housing bear in the mid-2000s when it was released, and I thought Barker had under-estimated the impact of easy credit on house prices.

While I haven’t exactly done a U-turn, the housing market hasn’t crashed as I’d predicted it would once the taps were turned off, especially here in London.

When the facts change, you have to consider changing your mind.

The case for investing in house builders

Perhaps easier to predict than the path of house prices though is the fortunes of UK house builders.

House building volumes have collapsed from pre-crisis levels, which were themselves too low for all the new household formation going on in Britain:

With divorce and single living still in the ascendant and net inward migration hitting a new high of 252,000 in 2010, the need for extra homes just keeps on rising.

I therefore think house builders will enjoy plenty of demand for new houses to keep them in business for the next few years, even without a return to go-go price rises.

The share prices of house builders collapsed by 90% or more in 2008 and 2009. While they have recovered a bit, they still look cheap given that most now have far stronger balance sheets thanks to big rights issues and asset sales.

All the main builders have now returned to making profits, with their margins being helped along by the cheaper land they bought in the downturn. Margins are also up because today’s lower levels of activity enables them to haggle with their suppliers, and with the various tradesmen.

Yet the price-to-book values of house builders – a measure of how much you pay for a company’s assets – are still well below 0.5 in the case of the volume players like Taylor Wimpey and Barratt Developments.

Theoretically that means you get £2 of assets (such as land and properties in development) for every £1 of shares you buy.

True, these volume builders still carry a fair bit of debt. If you’re more risk averse you might want to investigate shares in the likes of Bellway and Redrow. They are more lightly-geared, and should better withstand the impact of a renewed recession.

Alternatively, you could wait for a dip and consider buying my favourite company in the sector, Berkeley Group. You’ve already missed a nice rise though, and the company doesn’t look half so cheap as its rivals. I continue to hold its shares for the long-term, and consider management in a different league to the competition.

Investing in property mad Britain

Interestingly, share prices in the builders actually fell on the news of the government’s plans.

Perhaps the market expected more of a bail out from Cameron and Co, or perhaps investors are concerned about the money that builders will need to invest as their part of the guarantee scheme.

It’s worth noting, however, that most house builders are already on the hook should house prices fall with renewed vigour.

Not only will their land holdings be written down in value again, but many have been undertaking shared equity and part-exchange business, which has seen them retain housing assets on their books. You should definitely dig deeper into the accounts if this makes you nervous and you’re considering investing; my point is the few percentage points of extra risk they’d retain with the new scheme isn’t wildly different to what some are already doing.

Whatever the stock market thought this week, though, I think the outlook for shares in house builders in the medium term from today’s depressed levels is pretty bright.

The government clearly wants more houses to be built – if only for the economic activity it generates – and most of us seem happy to keep paying an awful lot for those houses. Planning changes should also play into the house builders’ hands.

No guarantees, but I think their share prices will likely be much more upwardly mobile than general house price inflation over the next few years.

{ 8 comments }