≡ Menu

Investment trust discounts and premiums

Investment trusts can trade at a large gap to their actual value

Many investors are unnerved by investment trust discounts and premiums. But the concepts involved are quite simple. And assuming you’re not – sensibly enough – a pure index fund investor1 – discounts and premiums shouldn’t put you off these interesting shares.

Equally, not understanding the difference between discounts and premiums can cost you money. It’s all too easy to be confused, as comments over the years on Monevator have revealed.

My previous articles on investment trusts should give you primer on the basics if you need it.

Today I’ll focus on discounts and premiums.

Investment trusts on sale

For active investors – or even ‘passive’ investors in the old-fashioned sense of buying and tucking away funds for the long-term – now could be a propitious time to look into these investment vehicles.

Recent data from the Association of Investment Companies (AIC) has 37 out of the 38 investment trust sectors trading at a discount:

“Since the beginning of the year the discount of the average investment company has widened more than 10 percentage points – from 3.6% on 31 December 2021 to 14.3% on 18 November 2022.

With almost all investment company sectors on a discount, the Association has published a list of average discounts across all equity and alternative sectors.

Out of 38 sectors, only the Hedge Funds sector trades at a premium, of 3.8%. The sector is one of this year’s best-performing, with several of its constituents delivering for investors in turbulent times, the AIC said.

The most deeply discounted equity sector is North America, on a 26.5% discount, followed by India on a 14.9% discount and Global Emerging Markets on 12.4%.

Among equity sectors, AIC figures show the biggest discount changes in 2022 have been in the Biotechnology & Healthcare and Technology & Media sectors, where discounts have widened by 9.2 and 8.5 percentage points respectively.”

As a naughty active investor (in contrast to my passive investing co-blogger) I love rummaging around in the investment trust bargain basement.

And as a long-time plunger in such markets, now feels like as good a time as any to get more than you paid for when you buy an investment trust.

But what exactly is a discount, and why should you pay attention?

Let’s start at the beginning.

What does your investment trust own?

We all (now) know that an investment trust is a company that purchases assets to hold or trade.

Such assets could include equities, property, bonds, or even exotic fare like farmland or art. The specific assets held will depend on the trust’s stated investment objective. (Or mandate, in the jargon.)

When we buy shares in a particular investment trust, we become part-owners in the trust. Effectively we then have part-ownership of those underlying assets.

Our slice of the pie depends on the percentage of the trust’s total shares outstanding that we own.

Most of us will only ever own a few thousand shares in an investment trust. But it’s the same principle, whether you hold 0.001% or 10% of the trust’s shares.

For example, equity income investment trusts own shares in large blue chip companies that pay healthy dividend yields.

As a shareholder in such a trust, you’ll typically be paid your proportion of the dividend income generated by those blue chip equities – minus the trust’s fees, hidden costs, and any income it retains for future use.

Equity income trusts appeal to active investors who want a diversified income. But as a shareholder, you’ll also benefit (or suffer) from the rise and fall in the value of the shares your trust owns.

Similarly, you might buy an investment trust that owns property or miners or bonds – or pretty much anything else you can think of.

You might even buy an investment trust because you hope think the manager is an especially skilled one.

They may be fishing from the same general pool of shares you could buy for yourself – or that you could invest in via a tracker fund – but you may believe the trust’s manager is more skillful at picking winners. And so you hope their trust will beat the market.

Net assets

In any case, the trust will own a lot of stuff, which are called its assets.

The trust may also have debt (also known as gearing). These borrowings would need to be repaid out of assets if the trust were ever to be wound up, before its owners (the trust’s shareholders) could divide whatever was left.

Therefore:

Net asset value (NAV) = Total trust assets minus any debt

How to calculate the net asset value per share

While they amount to the same thing, it’s often easier to think about what portion of the trust’s net assets each individual share is theoretically entitled to, rather to work off the whole trust’s market value.

Let’s consider an example.

Imagine the world’s simplest investment trust, Monevator Investments PLC.

This recklessly mismanaged operation owns shares in just two companies, TI Corp and TA Inc. (Hey, it’s good to hedge your bets!)

Let’s say shares in TI Corp are trading at £10 and TA Inc is at £12, and that the trust owns 100,000 shares of TI Corp, and 50,000 shares of TA Inc.

The trust’s TI Corp holding is worth £10 x 100,000 = £1 million

Its TA Inc holding is worth £12 x 50,000 = £600,000

The Monevator trust has zero debts.

Therefore, the net assets of Monevator Investments PLC is £1.6 million.

Now, let’s say this trust has one million shares in issue.

Net assets per share = £1.6 million / 1 million = 160p per share.

Each share is effectively a claim on 160p worth of assets owned by Monevator Investments.

So far so simple!

Investment trust share price versus NAV

Any share is worth whatever someone will pay for it. There’s no right or wrong value for any particular share that you can calculate with a formula – in the sense that whatever value you come up with, it’s irrelevant if nobody will pay that for it today.

This is why share prices are so volatile. The market is constantly trying to agree upon the correct value of every company.

Consider a giant drug maker like GlaxoSmithKline. Calculating its ‘correct’ valuation is likely impossible. There are many brands, new ventures, potential disasters and expired patients patents that can impact its profits from quarter-to-quarter.

Fluctuating sentiment also continually alters the multiple (the P/E ratio) that investors are prepared to pay for a claim on Glaxo’s profits.

Over the long-term our valuation estimate might prove to be approximately right. But in the short-term it’ll be precisely wrong – except by luck.

In contrast we can immediately see what a Glaxo share is worth right now by pulling up its share price on the Internet.

You might believe GlaxoSmithKline is worth £20 a share. But as I type this the market says it’s worth £14.55. That’s what someone will pay for its shares right now.

If you’re confident you’re right, you might buy Glaxo shares as they’re trading for less than your valuation and wait for the market to come around to your thinking. (That, in a nutshell, is stockpicking. But that’s for another day…)

Investment trust valuation is a little different

With an investment trust like Monevator Investments PLC, it’s usually very easy to work out its value. You simply look at its assets and debts, calculate the NAV like we did above, and hey presto – you’ve got its value.

This is true of any investment trust that holds a basket of liquid and quoted securities, where you can just call up the latest price of each investment. (I’m ignoring for now more complicated trusts that invest in unquoted or illiquid assets). 

You don’t even have to calculate the NAV per share, unless you want to double-check something. Resources like the AIC’s website collates the stats for you. Trusts also regularly publish their NAVs via the London Stock Exchange’s RNS service.

Now before anyone objects, it’s true that the listed securities owned by the trust might be worth more or less than what the market is pricing them at today, and hence what’s reflected in the NAV.

That takes us back to the Glaxo discussion we just had.

But the point is a trust could in theory dump all its Glaxo shares at today’s market price.2 And that by doing so for all its holdings and then paying off the debt, it would (after costs) be left with that NAV in cash.

In other words, for mainstream investment trusts the NAV is not subjective or an opinion. It’s a fact.

Discounts, premiums, and NAVs

Despite this certainty, it’s often the case that the share price of an investment trust trades at less than its NAV per share.

And this may be an opportunity. Price is what you pay but value is what you get, to quote Warren Buffett.

For instance, Monevator Investments may trade for £1.20 a share, despite anyone with a calculator being able to see its NAV per share is £1.60.

So in this case, a buyer is getting £1.60 of underlying assets for just £1.20.

Bargain! The share is trading at a discount to NAV:

The discount is (£1.60-£1.20)/£1.60 = 25%

The general idea is that you get more for your money when you invest at a discount. Hopefully in time the discount will narrow, pulling the share price up towards the NAV and amplifying your returns.

Note there’s no guarantee this will happen though. (If there was, discounts probably wouldn’t exist.)

Sometimes trusts can languish on discounts indefinitely. Trusts may even be wound-up as a consequence. Doing so almost always closes the discount, but it typically comes after a period where whatever caused the discount (lousy returns, say) have already done a bit of damage.

Discounts can also be great for income investors who buy and hold, since the money you spend on your shares buys you more of the trust’s income generating assets.

For example, suppose a trust trading at £1 per share – the same as its NAV of 100p – owns a portfolio of blue chips that generates a 3% yield. If the share price falls to 90p to create a 10% discount to an unchanged NAV, then new buyers will enjoy a higher 3.33% yield from the trust. (That is, 100/90*3).

Premium pricing

Less often you’ll find a trust priced greater than its NAV. This is more common in bull markets, or for a popular new launch.

For instance let’s say Monevator Investments is trading at £1.80. Net assets are still £1.60 per share.

Then the premium is (£1.80-£1.60)/£1.60 = 12.5%

Now you’re paying 12.5% above what the shares would be worth if everything was sold tomorrow.

Probably not such a good deal!

Also, what I said above about discounts boosting your income is countered with premiums. They reduce the yield from the trust’s underlying investments.

Paying premiums can be costly

For one very illuminating example, when I wrote the first version of this article in 2014 Fundsmith’s then-new emerging market trust traded at a premium to NAV. This was despite its initial assets being merely cash.

You were paying, say, £1.05 to buy £1.

People wanted to own the shares as a bet that fund manager Terry Smith’s stock picking prowess would extend to emerging markets. However that didn’t really pan out, the shares slipped to a discount, and in 2022 the trust was wound up.

So beware hype and premiums kids!

For another example, popular fund manager Nick Train’s Lindsell Train investment trust was trading at a premium of nearly 100% a few years ago.

In that instance investors were betting that the NAV was misstated. This line of thinking was possible because Lindsell Train’s largest asset is a holding in Train’s own investment company, also called Lindsell Train.

With unlisted investments like that, the pricing certainty I talked about doesn’t hold. (This is most commonly seen with private and venture capital trusts.) Hence you can’t be sure of the NAV.

To his credit, Train repeatedly warned investors they were probably paying too much for the trust’s shares. And for the record the share price has halved since those days. Indeed last month you could even buy the shares at a discount.

Sometimes a small premium is the price of entry to a very popular trust, particularly one that has some kind of discount control mechanism allied to its strong appeal.

For instance, Capital Gearing Trust is usually priced just over NAV.

More egregiously, infrastructure trusts have tended to trade at double-digit premiums, although this year these have finally collapsed as bond yields have risen, reducing their relative attractiveness.

Personally I’d never pay more than a couple of percent as a premium. And then only very rarely.

A few final tips on discounts and premiums

Here’s a few things you may be wondering about – or that maybe you should be wondering about if you’re not:

  • Typically a negative number – for example -5% or (5%) – indicates the level of discount to NAV.
  • In contrast a positive percentage indicates a premium to NAV.
  • As mentioned, investment trusts must release regular RNS press releases to the stock market. You can find these on various websites. I always check these for the latest NAV per share, and I do the discount/premium calculations for myself. Sometimes the online data sources and factsheets are out of date.
  • Another reason to check is that different data suppliers often treat debt and accrued income differently in their calculations. (For example, one may count debt on the balance sheet at its face value, while another calculates its impact on NAV based on what it would cost to pay off the debt today).
  • Why do investment trusts trade at discounts? And why on Earth would anyone pay more for a trust than its assets are worth? Great questions, that I’ve previously attempted to answer.

Opportunity knocks

The whole discounts and premiums malarkey was often pinned by old-school Independent Financial Advisers as the reason they put their customers’ money into unit trusts rather than investment trusts.

Clients were too easily confused, they said. (“Honest guv, nothing to do with the commission that unit trusts kicked back, but investment trusts could not…“)

Yet confusion, panic, and mispricing can be your friend if you’re involved in the quixotic (and generally ill-advised) game of active investing.

To that end, I think investment trusts and their mercurial discounts offer a dedicated active investor an interesting halfway house between open-ended funds and ETFs and the outright stockpicking of single company shares.

And after a long sell-off in shares that have hit investment trusts pretty hard, discounts abound.

If you’re an active investor for your sins, happy hunting!

  1. Investment trusts are companies that invest in other companies, so in effect they are actively managed funds. Passive index fund investors prefer the warm comfort of low fees and getting the market return to the potential (but in practice rare) upside from active management. They’d therefore choose trackers and ETFs over investment trusts. []
  2. In practice this might move the share price if it owned a lot relative to the company’s outstanding share count. Again: details! []
{ 22 comments }

How To Fund The Life You Want review

How To Fund The Life You Want review post image

Want to get a grip on your finances? Need a UK Money Management 101? Then you’ll find How To Fund The Life You Want an excellent starting point.

I could imagine this book being the essential companion to an online course that all Britons took in their late twenties. Just imagine! An investment in everyone’s financial future and education. 

Alas in our dreary reality – wandering in the political spectrum between the Wild West and the Nanny State – the UK prefers to muddle through. 

We’re left to work things out for ourselves.

The trick is to wake up before it’s too late – and to know where to look for help.

Pointing you in the right direction

How To Fund The Life You Want is a great place to begin because:

  • Its guidance is sensible, easily digested, up-to-date, and presented so that anyone can tailor it to suit. 
  • It’s a straightforward read that skates lightly in and around financial industry jargon. Prior expertise is not required. 
  • The authors have structured the book to provide a route map of the way ahead, with recommendations on additional field trips you might take. For example, exploring the back roads of the tax system, or the cul-de-sacs in your own investing psychology. 
  • Taking control of your entire financial future is daunting but these guys show it’s achievable. 

How To Fund The Life You Want: who it’s for

The book’s authors – Robin Powell and Jonathan Hollow – state upfront:

“We have written this book for people in the UK who feel they don’t know enough about pensions and investing to plan for their retirement.”

Indeed the overall thrust of the book is very much about helping you to retire at a time and income level of your choosing.  

However I think the authors’ holistic approach gives the book wider application, as they gently encourage readers to think about their money values (and taboos), and what it’s all actually for – a key part of a full personal finance awakening. 

Powell and Hollow introduce the character of our future self as a person worth investing in – versus our overweening current self – in order to break down our natural inclination to under-save and prevaricate about the future. 

They also lay out an elegant money management system that could help anyone ensure their income flows first to meet bills and debts, with the remainder channelled to fulfil the needs of both your current and future selves.

And as with the rest of the book, the money management section is written with empathy for the needs of people who are not natural finance ninjas.

This chapter particularly benefits from Hollow’s experience working on the superb Money Helper consumer finance site1, and his own struggle to tame budget-o-phobia with apps and behavioural hacks. 

By the final page, the authors have nudged us into considering how to identify scammers and financial sharks, when it makes sense to engage a financial advisor, and how to reconcile your personal need for a result with your ethical values using ESG2 investing. 

Good foundations

Long-time Monevator readers will recognise the book’s investing guidance is founded on solid bedrock:

  • First grab your day-to-day finances by the scruff.
  • Invest in passive investing products and keep your costs low.
  • Understand financial markets are a rollercoaster
  • Understand risk is a multi-headed beast.
  • Develop the wisdom to accept what you can control and what you cannot
  • Gain a feel for the numbers that can help you fund the life you want. 

It’s sound advice that should be mainstream in the UK – yet it isn’t. 

The authors aren’t radical FIRE-brands or passive investing zealots. They’ve written this prescription because the evidence leads them to believe it’s the best way for most people to achieve their financial goals

But they’re careful to remind us that this stuff isn’t set-and-forget. New evidence, products, or regulation may emerge that changes the game.

So stay engaged

How To Fund The Life You Want: why it’s good

How To Fund The Life You Want is the best entry-level book I’ve read for UK residents who want to take charge of their financial future. 

It’s written for those who don’t yet know what path they might take:

  • DIY investor? 
  • Default into some combination of Nest workplace pension and robo-advice solutions?
  • May yet decide to engage a financial advisor? 

Or perhaps you’ll devise a hybrid plan? One that mix and matches all of the above? 

The authors sketch out your many options. 

And that leads me to my one note of criticism. Actually more of an observation about the book’s role – and an acknowledgement of the messy reality of the UK’s consumer financial market. 

How To Fund The Life You Want covers so much ground that inevitably it covers it lightly.

True, for some people this will be as much detail as they can take. But others may think it skims over important points. 

Personally I’m a details man. But even I can see this book is a masterclass of streamlining.

It’s incredibly hard to make the complex seem simple. But Powell and Hollow have clearly thought deeply about when to hold your hand, when to prod you to do your own research, and when to invite you to disentangle your feelings on a money issue. (You can use even their accompanying workbook as a prompt if you’re so inclined).

They also refer the reader to a useful collection of online calculators and other resources they believe can help. 

A pillar for your investing bookshelf

The fact is that the scope of UK personal finance is too big for any one book. And no one in their right mind reads a single article, or even an entire book, and believes that’s the last word.

So for me, How To Fund The Life You Want is the ‘big picture’ book for newbie UK investors. 

It provides essential onboarding and orientation material if you haven’t invested before – or if you haven’t gotten the memo yet about avoiding market-timing or punting on currencies and crypto. 

My recommendation is to read this book if you’re at that stage of your journey. (Or gift it to anyone you know who is!)

I’d suggest you then pair it with a dedicated UK investing book such as Lars Kroijer’s Investing Demystified

Finally, keep up-to-date through Powell’s own website The Evidence-Based Investor and – though we hate to toot our own horn3Monevator’s own passive investing resources. 

I enjoyed How To Fund The Life You Want anyway, despite being about as wizened as a UK passive investor can be.

But if I was starting from scratch, this is the UK personal finance book I’d want to read first. 

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. The Money Advice Service, as was. []
  2. Environmental, Social and Governance. []
  3. We don’t – The Investor. []
{ 15 comments }
Our Weekend Reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

This week, the world of investing is buzzing about ChatGPT, a revolutionary new development in the field of artificial intelligence and natural language processing.

ChatGPT, or ‘Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer,’ is a large language model trained by OpenAI. It has the ability to generate human-like text based on a given prompt, making it a powerful tool for a variety of applications.

One of the most exciting possibilities for ChatGPT is its potential to disrupt the world of online communication. With its ability to generate realistic-sounding text, ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionize the way companies communicate with their audiences.

For investors, the emergence of ChatGPT and other AI technologies raises some important questions. How will these technologies impact the companies in which we invest? And how should we adjust our investment strategies in response?

One potential consequence of the rise of AI is that it could lead to increased automation in various industries. This could reduce the demand for human labor, leading to job losses and potentially impacting the bottom line of companies that rely heavily on human workers.

At the same time, however, the development of AI technologies could also create new opportunities for growth. Companies that are able to effectively utilize AI and natural language processing could see increased efficiency and productivity, leading to improved financial performance.

However, there are also some potential downsides to the widespread use of AI for content creation. With large amounts of automatically-generated content being produced without human oversight, there is a risk of unreliable or even fraudulent information being disseminated. This could have negative consequences for both companies and investors.

Furthermore, the use of AI-generated content could also make it easier for companies to disseminate convincing-sounding but ultimately flawed financial advice. The average person may not have the knowledge or expertise to spot the difference between reliable information and fake news generated by AI. This could put them at a disadvantage when making investment decisions.

In order to navigate these potential shifts in the market, it’s important for investors to stay informed about the latest developments in AI and natural language processing. By keeping a close eye on the companies that are leading the way in these areas, investors can position themselves to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these technologies while also minimizing the risks.

One way to do this is through the use of index funds. By investing in index funds, investors can own a piece of the companies that are driving the development of new technologies like ChatGPT. This means that no matter what changes the future brings, investors can be confident that they will own a share of the companies that are at the forefront of the latest technological developments.

In conclusion, everyone is excited about ChatGPT this week, and for good reason. It’s a revolutionary development that has the potential to disrupt the way companies communicate.

‘More human than human’ is our motto

What do you reckon to that, eh?

Bit flat? Lacking the puns, schoolboy humour, and anti-Brexit tirades you’ve come to expect on a Saturday from Monevator?

Yes, you guessed it – you just read the output from ChatGPT itself.

Here’s the prompt I gave it:

I suppose one bit of good news for scribble-smiths like me is that it can’t hit a word count. I asked for 700 words, and it’s delivered 479 of them.

Otherwise: cor blimey.

Observant readers may have noticed me slipping stories about machine learning into Weekend Reading for the past few years. I am both fascinated and paranoid about where this is going.

One of my few certain talents is I can extrapolate better than many people. As such I was (a) not shocked by the proficiency of this latest model and (b) am less relieved by its clear limitations.

It’s a giddy time for advancements in machine learning and AI. Personally, I think those closest to it can be complacent. I feel they don’t appreciate the rate of advance and they dwell overly on the near-term shortcomings. Sort of like you can’t tell how your own kid is growing tall and talented until a distant relative visits and is surprised.

Sure, we don’t know exactly what is growing capable with these machine learning models.

But it’s doing so quickly!

I’m afraid. I’m afraid, Dave

There’s so much to be said about this, even within the narrow terms of investing. If you want another hit then check out this beautifully written post by Indeedably:

The promise of what this technology will offer in the future in equal part excites and terrifies me. Much like the early internet I encountered during that hungover tutorial, that future promise far exceeds the realities of the current implementation.

Much like that early internet, I can already start to see just how transformative it has the potential to become. The white-collar world has long been a safe harbour for well-remunerated workers to finance a comfortable lifestyle endlessly moving data, producing slide decks, torturing spreadsheets, and writing code.

Those workers are about to experience first-hand what their agrarian, mining, and production line working forebears felt like a generation or three ago. It will be fascinating to watch the evolution.

No chatbot is going to match Indeedably’s copy anytime soon. Nor, I hope, ours.

But at the same time I’m sure that right now thousands of people trying to figure out how to spin-up vast AI content farms to game Google and suck away Internet traffic for advertising pennies. (Even though in the long run, ChatGPT-style models will kill generic content silos. And maybe even Google search).

Some spammer’s traffic gain is every other web publisher’s loss.

Perhaps me and Indeedably need to worry even sooner than I thought.

You are terminated

Maybe ChatGPT has already killed the traditional student essay. Maybe in the future we’ll have to sign everything we create (via a blockchain) to prove it isn’t a deep fake. Or that something else is a fake, by the omission of such a signature.

Perhaps we’ll have to show our identity papers to write a comment on Reddit. Already user-generated sites like Stack Overflow have been afflicted.

Will a grey goo of cruddy auto-generated verbiage swamp the Internet as we know it? Or should we be more worried about the day when everything a bot writes is really good?

For now the moderators at Stack Overflow are worried about bad ChatGPT programming code being submitted.

But in the long-run that site’s readers should be ready for its good code disrupting their jobs.

Similarly even fiction writers – indeed the entire creative class – are now on notice. Machine learning will be a tool for a while, but it could conceivably become a threat by mastering the things that we thought made us most human.

What do you think? Are you worried a young and hungry AI is coming for your salary? Let us know in the comments.

Oh, and come on England!

[continue reading…]

{ 38 comments }

Greedy buy-to-let landlord or mortgage prisoner?

Greedy buy-to-let landlord or mortgage prisoner? post image

Being a greedy buy-to-let landlord, I was super excited earlier this year to hear about soaring rents in London, tens of viewings for each property, and would-be tenants engaged in bidding wars.

Music to my ears, because my London buy-to-let was coming to the end of a three-year tenancy.

I was going to cash in big time!

Let’s see how it worked out. 

The sitrep

The property in question is an ex-local-authority three-bed freehold house in Tower Hamlets. The tenancy that was coming to an end was paying me £1,900 per month. (Down from £2,000 in 2019).

I’ve now re-let it for £2,400 a month for three years. Good, but given those headlines not as good as I thought it might be:

  • It’s let to three migrant workers, who earn about £75,000 between them. (They are cleaners and waiting staff).
  • The £28,800 they’re paying in rent is nearly 40% of their gross pay. I’d argue they are paying the maximum they can afford. (Wages should be higher, but that’s another story)
  • It’s let and managed through an agent, who takes roughly 16% plus VAT plus a load of other sundry stuff. It totals a bit more than 20% of the rent.
  • Other annual costs add up to a bit more than 10%. (My estimate, based on my long actual costs over the years).
  • If we assume (optimistically, but it makes the maths easy) 30% all-in costs (excluding financing) then this property earns: £2,400*12*(100%-30%) = £20,160 net. 
  • Zoopla thinks the house is worth £700,000. That is wildly optimistic IMHO; it’s clear their machine-learning algorithm hasn’t seen the place. Let’s call it £600,000.
  • The gross yield is £28,800 / £600,000 = 4.8%. That doesn’t seem so bad. 
  • Costs bring that down to £20,160 / £600,000 = 3.36% net (before financing)

Now if that was all there was to it, these figures might seem reasonable and fairly dull. You’d not be biting my hand off to buy this asset, would you? But nor is it an obvious sell.

You could even argue I’m getting a greater than 3% inflation-linked return. Not terrible by any means.

Mortgages and taxes

A few years ago a piece of stinging legislation – Section 24 of the 2015 Finance Act – changed the economics for greedy buy-to-let landlords like me.

In the post-Section 24 era, you have to pay tax on the rent (after all non financing costs) at your marginal rate.

You then you get a (lower) tax rebate for 20% of your financing costs. Which was a clever ruse. Because for many people, it pushes them into a higher tax band. Very often the 60% bracket between £100,000 and £125,000.

For this property I have a £300,000 (so 50% loan-to-value) fixed rate mortgage. The rate is around 2%. (This fix will last about four more years. Phew!)

The mortgage costs me 2%*£300,000 = £6,000 a year.

Let’s add all this up together:

I’ve also included the sums for a pre-Section 24 universe in the three rows at the end of this table as a comparison.

A few things stand out here:

  • The 60% tax rate is beyond ridiculous. It’s random and illogical.
  • Section 24 is also pretty ridiculous. (And no, I don’t care that regular homeowners can’t offset their mortgage interest against tax – touted as making Section 24 ‘fair’. Homeowners don’t have to pay income tax on their imputed rent either, do they?)
  • After tax, our greedy buy-to-let landlord is getting anything between £11,000 and £3,000, depending on their tax bracket.
  • Which one applies to me? The second from the right.

Earning 54bps on £600,000 is certainly nothing to write home about. But arguably what matters for our yield calculation is not the capital value of the property, but rather the ‘equity’ we have in it.

That is, how much ‘cash’ would we have if we sold it and paid off the mortgage?

On the face of it this appears to be:

£600,000 – £300,000 = £300,000 equity.

As you can see above, using the equity figure obviously makes the returns look a little better. Still I’d not exactly be thumping the table to get into this position.

Wait: it gets worse

All this maths is at the existing rate on my mortgage. But what if my fix was expiring today and I had to remortgage?

The lowest rate I could get is 5.3% (plus £2,000 in fees). I’ll explain how I can be so certain of this in a minute.

First let’s run the stress test:

Ugh, pass the sick bag.

A thought experiment. In this stress test scenario, how much would I have to increase the rent to break even on a post-tax cash flow basis, assuming I am a 60% taxpayer?

Well, because I only keep 40% of any increase, quite a lot. In fact it would require about a 50% increase to £3,600 per month. (Certain costs are somewhat fixed, others are not. That makes the estimate fuzzy).

Since my rival 20% taxpayers and corporate landlords would still be breaking even without such a hike, obviously I couldn’t do that. Plus it would equate to 58% of the tenants’ gross income.

Section 24 to me seems like just an excuse to charge higher earners yet more income tax.

But surely I could get a cheaper mortgage?

This is where the real fun begins. No, actually, I couldn’t.

This house is in Tower Hamlets. This London borough has an Additional Licensing Scheme under which it essentially deems all houses that are rented and occupied by tenants that do not form a ‘family unit’ to be Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

A conventional HMO usually involves: rooms let individually, short tenancies, the landlord being responsible for ‘shared’ areas, and so forth.

My house is not that. It’s just a regular house that’s let jointly to three sharers under one normal assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

However Tower Hamlets arbitrarily designating it as an HMO has also sorts of repercussions:

  • I have to pay Tower Hamlets £569 every five years
  • I have to comply with sundry additional health-and-safety regulations. Most of which are completely sensible best practice anyway, like having a mains fire alarm and so forth.
  • Randomly we’ll have an inspection. Whereby:
    • I’m responsible for the tidiness of ‘communal’ areas. Never mind that I’m also obligated to not interfere with my tenants’ peaceful enjoyment of the property. 
    • The tenants might have to swap all the furniture between the bedroom and the sitting room. Why? Because the bedroom is ‘too small’ according to the HMO rules. Never mind that there’s a large kitchen and enormous sitting room. And that it was Tower Hamlets that built this property in the first place. The compromise agreed to enable me to have three tenants is that they use the sitting room as a bedroom and the bedroom as a sitting room. And I’m sure this is what they do. 
  • I can’t change the mortgage provider. HMO mortgages are much more expensive, but my existing lender has agreed to ‘grandfather’ me, because it recognizes that it’s not really an HMO. But regular lenders now won’t touch it. 
  • My insurance is more expensive for the same reason. 
  • Presumably the open-market value of the property is reduced. Because, given its circumstances, the only likely purchaser is another landlord who would face all these issues as well. 

Note that, if, for example, I let to two siblings and a friend, and one of the siblings started a sexual relationship with the friend, then they’d be a family unit and I wouldn’t have to bother with all this. Even though nothing of any relevance has changed about the people or the building…

Ironically the situation has encouraged me to run the numbers on turning it into an ‘actual’ HMO. If I’ve got to adhere to all this stuff anyway, why not get a higher rental income?

(Is this really the incentive the council intended, I wonder?)

Fault lines

In any properly functioning country, we wouldn’t need these silly rules. People would simply move out of crap housing and live somewhere else.

We’d need empty houses for them to move into, of course. That would require we build more houses.

But it’s much easier to blame greedy landlords and too-many Johnny Foreigners than to actually let people build houses.

Looking at that graphic, I wonder what the problem could be?

Won’t capital growth make up for it?

Will I make a killing if I sell my flat in years to come for megabucks?

Who knows. But my guess would be no. The easy money in London property was made long ago.

I’ve always let this property to immigrants (despite the government’s best efforts to make doing so more difficult) and the mood music there isn’t great.

Besides, I wouldn’t want to be running cash-flow negative in the hope of ‘making up for it’ with capital gains. Especially when such gains may yet be subject to ‘windfall’ taxes or whatever else politicians fancy inflicting. 

Why not give up on the greedy buy-to-let landlord game?

I could just sell the property, of course.

If I then took my £300,000 equity and put it in my ISA (over a few years) I would have no trouble earning, say 4% p.a. in risk assets. (Which is what property is too, incidentally).

That would earn me £12,000 a year in income.

I could put the money into a FTSE 100 tracker. This would pay a 4% long-term inflation linked yield. It would cost 7 bps in fees. (iShares ticker ISF.L).

That fee is 1.7% of the ETF income, as my buy-to-let letting agent might like to note. Also a FTSE tracker will never call me to complain about leaky taps.

However on top of it not being a great time to sell property:

  • I don’t really have £300,000 of equity.
  • I can’t be bothered.
  • There isn’t anything I want to do with the money. (I can afford to fill our ISAs already.)

Why don’t I really have £300,000 in equity?

Let’s run the numbers. If I sold it, I’d have to pay off the mortgage and pay capital gains tax (CGT):

Anyone who’s still paying attention is going to immediately say: “Hold-on-a-minute, if you bought it for £100,000, why have you got a £300,000 mortgage on it?”

Yeah, you got me. Back in the heady noughties I increased the mortgage to release cash to use as a deposit on other BTL properties. I’ve long since sold them all.

In a sense I’ve already had my cake and eaten it on this one. I’ve essentially extracted all the profit. 

So on the one hand, I’ve ‘made’ half-a-million quid in capital gains. Not to be sneezed at. But at the same time it wouldn’t take that steep a fall in house prices (about 20%) before I was in negative equity (after capital gains tax).  

For the record, in reality I wouldn’t have to pay quite so much CGT. Holding growth stocks outside of tax shelters and dabbling in crypto means I have losses available to offset the gain.

Also, I can’t be bothered

Just the added tax complexity of selling induces anxiety. I completed on the last property I sold shortly after the government introduced new rules that required the CGT on UK property to be filed and paid within 30 days of the sale. (It’s now 60 days).

Again, this system appears to exist out of spite rather than for any real reason. Something that becomes clear if you have any interaction with it:

  • It’s separate from the annual self-assessment process. 
  • You have to file an on-line, one-off, intra-tax-year process, where you can elect to offset carried forward losses and the CGT allowance and so on. 
  • You pay any tax due (in my case tens of thousands of pounds).
  • I had to do all this myself, because my accountant isn’t capable of doing anything within 30 days.
  • After the end of the tax year you file your self-assessment. In my case I’d realised other losses, so my CGT bill should be zero. 
  • Naturally it’ll all come out in the wash of self-assessment, like offsetting your payments on account or whatever, right? Wrong. 
  • The special ‘UK Property’ gains tax system is not ‘connected’ to the self-assessment system in HMRC. Guess who’s responsible for sorting the mess out?
  • Rather than net out the difference and send me a refund, I have to go and amend the original UK Property CGT filing and my self-assessment to ‘move’ some of the losses from the self assessment to the UK Property filing.
  • To be clear, HMRC didn’t tell me this. My accountant did. And I can see no way you’d know that this is what you needed to do otherwise. 
  • I amend the original UK Property filing. Pretty much every page warns me that because I’m amending it after the 30 days deadline I’m likely to have to pay fines and penalties. Possibly jail time.
  • I amend the self-assessment as well. 
  • Wait for the refund, right? 
  • Of course not. HMRC writes to tell me that I’m owed a refund. But it doesn’t have any way of paying the refund. Could I please phone them?
  • Phone the number on the letter where, with dull inevitably, they know nothing about it. Spend the best part of a day going round different HMRC departments.
  • Finally I get to the right person. 
  • HMRC will pay me my refund within 90 days. Yes, you read that right. I have to pay the tax within 30 days, but it gets 90 days to pay me the refund. (This is over a year since I paid the tax). 

Now tell me that isn’t anything other than vindictive?

I suppose that in the politics-of-envy country we’ve become, anything that inconveniences greedy buy-to-let landlords is fair play, right?

There’s absolutely no motivation to sort it out. It doesn’t cost HMRC anything. And what am I going to do, pay my taxes elsewhere?

Chance would be a fine thing.

What’s the plan?

The plan is to bury my head in the sand and hope that something turns up in the three to four year window that I’ve bought myself.

The mortgage is fixed for four more years, and I’ve just agreed to a new three-year tenancy. A lot can change in three years. Interest rates might fall, rents might rise, my tax circumstances might change, Tower Hamlets might drop its stupid HMO rules, Section 24 might be repealed. (Okay, I was joking about the last two).

In the meantime I carry the (net-of-mortgage and tax) value of the property on my personal balance sheet as ‘a doughnut’ and ignore the income.

But maybe it’s not a complete waste of time and effort, after all. Because where are the migrants I just let the place to from?

Ukraine.

That’s something positive, anyway.

If you enjoyed this, follow Finumus on Twitter or read his other articles for Monevator.

{ 51 comments }