What makes us different?

Last week I published an article answering the question, “How have you put comprehensive financial planning at the heart of your business and what difference does your financial planning service make to your clients?“.

Part two of this short series addresses the second question I was asked to come up with an answer to, also in no more than 500 words;

What are the key differences between your business and an average financial planning business?

I think this is a great question and one which we continually try and answer ourselves as a means of improving our client service proposition. This short article contains the answer I gave at the time.

“Many firms claim to deliver a financial planning service. For some this is a service provided to a select group of clients. At Forty Two financial planning is what we do; it is who we are. Financial planning is the core of our service and lies at the very heart of our culture. We are passionate about financial planning and are proud to be one of the first firms to gain Accredited Financial Planning Firm status.

Like many firms, we started life as a transactional IFA earning commission from the sale of products. However, in the late 1990s I had a “Jerry Maguire” moment when I realised that the service we were providing to customers, and the way we were remunerated for this, was failing to deliver real value to our clients or our business. At that point I knew the old model was broken but didn’t have an alternative. In the years that followed, I discovered the IFP, fee-based financial planning, cashflow modelling, wrap platforms, a passive investment philosophy, and strategic asset allocation using model portfolios. While this was a major step forward, Forty Two have moved beyond fees, wraps and model portfolios to become a leading example of a modern financial planning practice.

We are no longer in the financial advice market or the product sales business. Instead, we have moved to the “Peace of Mind Business”. Cashflow forecasts lie at the heart of everything we do, providing a context for clients to make informed decisions. We coach clients and educate them about the implications of their decisions and how these move them towards achievement of clearly defined goals. Investments, wraps and tax planning are merely tools to help clients achieve the life they truly want to live.

We deal with people not their money.

The best people to explain the difference our service makes to our clients are the clients themselves. Therefore, I will let them speak on our behalf. As part of a recent exercise to clarify our value proposition and marketing message we asked our clients for the three words that best describe the true value they receive from their relationship with Forty Two. While there were plenty of obvious answers such as confidence, reassuring, personal, trustworthy, holistic, proactive and knowledgeable. Some of the phrases that really struck a chord with us are listed below:
•    Peace of mind
•    Listens and cares
•    Recognise the changing needs
•    Remembers family issues
•    Personal co-ordinated approach
•    Response to concerns
•    Nae strain, Nae stress, Nae worries

We feel this shows the core values and culture of our business which is to be a trusted partner to each and every client, always putting the client’s best interests first. We believe that we should never ask a client to do something we wouldn’t do yourselves if we were in their shoes. The aim is to be the best firm we can be and always keep improving, never stop learning, continually push the boundaries and be a leader in our field.”

We don’t claim to be perfect or to be the finished article but we aspire, and continue to strive, to attain these standards and to deliver the best service we can to all our clients.

Posted in Investing Your Money, Truth About Money | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Financial Planning or Financial Advice?

There has been an ongoing debate in the financial services industry for many years about whether it is better to deal with an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) or someone who sells the products of one (or a limited number) of companies (tied/multi-tied advisers). In fact, the Law Society and Institute of Chartered Accountants require their members only refer a client in need of financial advice to an Independent Financial Adviser which clearly implies that, in their eyes at least, independent is best.

This debate has been reignited recently in the run up to new rules which will come into effect next year as a result of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) Retail Distribution Review (RDR). That’s quite enough jargon and acronyms for one post; I promise!

However, this whole argument completely misses the point. The real issue is whether clients need Financial Planning or Financial Advice.

It is no secret that I believe Financial Planning is a fundamentally different service from traditional Financial Advice.

Financial Advice, whether from an IFA or someone working for a bank or other  provider of financial products, is NOT Financial Planning no matter what the name on a business card or brochure says. Financial Advice MAY be part of the Financial Planning process but it is not Financial Planning.

Given my views on Financial Planning, I was recently asked to answer the following question in no more than 500 words.

How have you put comprehensive financial planning at the heart of your business and what difference does your financial planning service make to your clients?

This is what I came up with:

“We fully agree with Carl Richards’ recent assertion that financial plans are worthless but financial planning (the process) is invaluable.

We only provide financial planning as a holistic service. We do not provide any form of one-off transactional advice.

Cashflow is King – without a proper lifetime cashflow projection you do not have a financial plan.

During our client meetings we adopt an interactive approach to Financial Planning WITH clients rather than FOR clients. We encourage clients to examine multiple “what if?” and “can I?” scenarios and focus on goal setting and action planning.

Most advisers are trained to speak and often feel compelled to fill every space in a conversation in order to demonstrate their knowledge and expertise. We have spent a great deal of time training to listen and be comfortable with silence. It is only by giving clients the space to really think about the questions that we can make important discoveries about the real value of money and their relationship with it. It is this deeper level of understanding that allows us to help our clients achieve their goals. We believe that financial planning is about people not money.

We use a lifestyle financial planning methodology to help clients visualise, clarify and articulate their goals and objectives. For some, these are aspirational life-changing events, but for many the focus is ensuring the security of their current lifestyle no matter what life throws at them, or their family.

We have moved beyond modern portfolio theory and passive investing to appreciating the impact of client behaviour and emotion on investment decisions. We manage clients, not their money. You could say we are INVESTOR managers not INVESTMENT managers.

As a result a typical two hour review meeting may include no more than 5 to 10 minutes discussing investments.

We strive to demystify financial matters, to explode myths and to avoid jargon where possible.

Ultimately, clients only require an answer to one simple question – am I going to be OK?  Can I lead the life I want without worrying about outliving my money? Our review meetings follow a consistent format:

1.    What am I worth?
2.    What’s coming in?
3.    What’s going out?
4.    Will I be OK?

We help clients focus on their personal goals. Review meetings are an opportunity for clients to check their progress.

We continue to strive to utilise technology to its full advantage. We have recently moved from a traditional product centric back-office system to a new client centric CRM system.  The commitment to integration with other best of breed providers was a major consideration for our cashflow modelling partner (Voyant) and wrap platform (Transact). This focus on seamless integration allows us to operate robust processes and reduce duplication. The end result is less time spent on things clients don’t value and more time planning with our clients. This journey is still a work in progress, but we are seeing impressive results.”

At times like this, when investment markets are unpredictable, a structured approach to Financial Planning and the discipline to stick to the plan are what really makes a difference. The ability to see the full financial picture in the context of progress towards personal goals and objectives is what provides peace of mind, not the sale of the latest hot investment fund.

In short, if it doesn’t have a cashflow, it isn’t a financial plan no matter what any IFA or product salesman may say.

Posted in Truth About Money | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Cross Border Financial Planning Issues – Closer Than You Realise?

Regardless of your views on the issue of a Scottish Independence Referendum it is important to realise that Scotland is already different from the rest of the UK in many ways that impact on Financial Planning decisions. Some of these are outlined below:

  1. Age of maturity – In England and Wales a child reaches the age of maturity at 18 but in Scotland they grow up faster and become mature 2 years earlier at just 16. “So what” you might say but this is a very important issue in relation to Financial Planning. For example, some people place assets in a child’s name using a Bare Trust. In Scotland that child gains legal ownership of the asset on their 16th birthday. Will they be mature enough to deal with this responsibility? Does this reflect your intentions for their welfare?
  2. Wills – There are several differences with regards to wills:
    1. Marriage automatically revokes a will in England and Wales but NOT in Scotland. Does your will actually reflect your wishes?
    2. In England and Wales the witness to a will can also benefit but this is not the case in Scotland.
    3. In Scotland the “Legal Rights” of a spouse or civil partner can override the provisions in a will.
    4. In Scotland a will can be invalidated if it doesn’t cater for a child born after its making. It is clearly important to keep your will up to date.
    5. In Scotland you can’t disinherit your children even though I’m often tempted to try!
  3. Intestacy – The laws of intestacy (what happens to your assets if you don’t have a valid will) are different both sides of the border. In England and Wales the rules depend on the size of the estate and the nature of the surviving family. However, in Scotland certain rights must be satisfied before the remainder of the estate can be distributed. These are known as “Prior Rights” and “Legal Rights“. We will cover this in more detail in a future article.
  4. Trusts – In England and Wales the Investment Powers of Trustees are contained in the Trustee Act 2000. In Scotland Investment Powers are governed by The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 although the actual investment powers are very similar. A valid trust must be witnessed in Scotland but this is not required in England and Wales. Another important difference is the removal of trustees. In England and Wales a Trustee can be removed by the remaining Trustees serving notice but this is not the case in Scotland. It can be very difficult and expensive to get rid of a Trustee in Scotland so pick your trustees carefully.
  5. Powers of Attorney – It is tempting to believe that Powers of Attorney are not needed until you are old and infirm but nothing could be further from the truth. While many POA do come into force in later life due to illnesses such as dementia, I could just as easily be hit by a bus while cycling home and suffer serious brain injuries that prevent me from looking after my own affairs. It is never too early to make a Power of Attorney. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 introduced Lasting Powers of Attorney which relate to a donor’s (the person giving power over their affairs) property and affairs as well as their personal welfare. Powers of Attorney in Scotland are created under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. The terminology is quite different in Scotland for example a “donor” is a “granter”.
  6. Property Ownership – There are two ways to own property with an other individual in both Scotland and, England and Wales. The concepts are the same but the terminology is quite different.
    1. In England and Wales property is often owned as Joint Tenants. In Scotland this is know as Joint Property. In either case the property is basically owned collectively and on death of one individual the ownership of their share automatically passes to the survivor. This can limit the scope for financial planning particularly in relation to Inheritance Tax.
    2. The alternative is to own property in distinct shares which the English and Welsh call Tenants In Common and the Scots call Common Property. In this case the rights of the deceased do not automatically pass to the survivor but can be distributed in accordance with the specific wishes of the deceased. This is often used an an Inheritance Tax (IHT) planning tool although its use has diminished somewhat since the introduction of the Transferable Nil Rate Band a few years back.
    3. If property is currently owned as Joint Tenants or Joint Property it is possible to change this. In England and Wales this involves a change of tenancy known as “Severance of Tenancy” in Scotland we call it “Evacuation of Special Destination” but the concept is the same. It can offer very attractive planning options but can also have some very serious side effects so you should not enter into this without specialist legal guidance.
  7. Bankruptcy & Insolvency – In England and Wales an individual can be made bankrupt for any debt of £750 or more under the Enterprise Act 2002. In Scotland bankruptcy is sometimes referred to as sequestration and the debtor must owe at least £3,000.
  8. Pensions and Divorce – There are also differences in how pension rights are treated on divorce in each region. In England and Wales a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is used in respect of pension sharing. In Scotland a CETV or a specified sum may be used. The options available are:
    1. offsetting -  pension rights are balanced (offset) against other assets such as the matrimonial home
    2. sharing – pension benefits are split at the time of divorce and each party has their own pension pot going forward
    3. earmarking – an amount of the member’s pension and/or lump sum is specified (earmarked) at the time of the split and comes into force when the member retires or draws pension benefits. In Scotland the option of earmarking is only available with regard to lump sums (not pensions).

 

As you can see regardless of whether Scotland stays part of the UK or not, there are already significant differences between Scotland and England and Wales when it comes to financial planning. This article is not intended as a means of exploring all of the issues or going into great detail. However, it should make you consider the implications of different legal systems and the need to ensure that you review your financial planning regularly.

In particular make sure your wills, powers of attorney and any trusts are kept up to date and reflect your current wishes. This is a very specialist area of advice which requires legal expertise from someone who knows the relevant legal system inside out. At Forty Two we have enough knowledge of the two systems to know that Financial Planners shouldn’t be giving this type of advice. We recommend all clients always seek expert legal guidance from a specialist in the relevant area. If you need help with this we can put you in touch with a suitable expert depending on your particular needs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Worse than Dick Turpin

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of retail investment funds using hedge fund management strategies and, even more worryingly, hedge fund style fee structures. This is something that really concerns me so I though I should explain why in a blog article.

Traditional investment funds buy assets such as shares, property or bonds and aim to make a profit from income payments (shares pay dividends, property earns rent and bonds pay interest). They may also benefit from a price increase when they come to sell the asset. There are strict rules governing the type of investment techniques/strategies each fund may use. These funds are known as “long only” investments and are relatively simple and easy for investors to understand. They typically charge a simple management fee based on the value of assets. For share funds this fee is often around 1.5% pa but can be substantially higher.

Hedge funds on the other hand are able to use a mind-boggling array of techniques including short selling (betting against shares, bonds, currencies or anything else they choose and profiting from any fall in value). When I was researching a presentation for the Institute of Financial Planning (IFP) Scottish Conference a few years back I found 154 different hedge fund indexes covering different markets, styles and strategies listed on FE alone.

The American hedge fund manager John Paulson famously made billions betting against sub-prime mortgage securities which ultimately caused the “credit crunch” and the stock market collapse of 2008. Another well known hedge fund guru, Gorge Soros earned the name “the man who broke the bank of England” when he made vast profits betting against the Pound during the ERM crisis of September 1992.

Hedge funds claim to be able to earn money in all market conditions. In fact market crisis such as the Credit Crunch and the current Euro Zone debt crisis should be exactly the type of environment in which hedge funds thrive and provide investors with valuable protection against market falls.

A recent article in The Economist starts with the words “With bold promises of strong returns in good times and bad, hedge funds have seduced many an investor.” But how have they actually performed? Well, 2008 was the worst year on record for Hedge Funds and 2011 was pretty much the same – according to Reuters they performed worse than traditional funds at exactly the time when they were supposed to protect investors.

Fortunately, hedge funds can’t be marketed directly to retail investors in the UK, although they can be held within some other funds that are.

A few years back a form of hedge-fund-lite known as Absolute Return funds started to be marketed aggressively by fund managers and Independent Financial Advisers (IFA). In 2011 alone the top two funds in the sector Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies and Newton Real Return each attracted around £2.5 Billion of new investment. These funds are available to retail investors and are able to employ limited hedge fund style management techniques. The marketing story states that Absolute Returns funds seek to provide investors with a steady positive return in all market conditions – They haven’t succeeded!

However, that isn’t the biggest issue with Hedge funds and Absolute Return funds. The biggest issue is manager remuneration (or fees to you and I). While traditional funds typically charge investors around 1.5%pa to try and beat their benchmark (and very few actually succeed consistently), hedge funds claim that, in order to attract the best talent and ensure their interests are aligned with investors, they need to charge higher basic fees AND charge a performance fee. Another Economist article starts “Hedge-fund managers are the smartest investors around. With keen eyes and sharp brains, they spot and exploit inefficiencies in the markets. Or at least that is what the industry tells its clients.”

A typical hedge fund fee structure is “2 + 20″  which means the manager earns 2% of the value of the fund every year no matter what.  However in years where the fund makes a profit, the manager also earns 20% of the profit. I have seen funds with fees of 3 + 30!!!

In reality most funds do have a”hurdle” where the performance fee is only paid on profits above an agreed benchmark such as Bank of England Base rate. Many funds also include a “high water mark” which is designed to protect investors by ensuring that managers don’t earn performance fees until they have at least clawed back their previous losses. i.e. they are only paid for real gains.

The marketing would have you believe that performance fees are used for the benefit of investors, “if we don’t beat our benchmark we don’t get paid”. However, nothing could be further from the truth as the following example will clearly show:

Let’s assume an investor placed £1 million in a hedge fund two years ago and the fund achieved a return of 10% pa before fees. You would expect the fund to have grown by £200,000 less fees of 4%pa (2% of the fund value plus 20% of the 10% return = 4% in total) giving a net return of 6%pa. In this case our investor would have earned £119,365 over the two year period and the fund manager would have earned £86,435. The fund manager would have earned almost three quarters of what the investor earned. This sounds bad but wait until you see what would really have happened!

As with other investments, hedge fund returns don’t usually deliver a nice even return of 10% every year. Some years they make large profits, others they lose substantial amounts. In 2007 John Paulson’s Advantage Plus fund returned over 160% but last year it lost 52%. In order to make my simple example work let’s assume our fictitious hedge fund earned 150% in year 1 and lost 52% in year 2. This would imply a return of £200,000 before fees over two years giving us a simple average return of 10%pa as before.

But what happened to the fees?

In the first year the fund made a profit of £1.5million making the annual fee £350,000 (of which £300,000 is a performance fee). At the end of the first year our happy investor has a fund of £2,150,000 and is probably feeling quite smug about his choice of fund manager. However, in year two the fund fell by 52% which slashed the value of his portfolio by £1,118,000 before fees. Obviously, the fund manager would receive no performance fee this year but would still receive the basic annual fee of £20,640 (2%). Our unhappy investor would finish the second year with a fund of £1,011,360 giving a total return on investment of £11,360 over the two year period (an annual return of a little over 0.5%). However, the fund manager pocketed a total of £370,640 (33 TIMES the return to the investor!!!). Incidentally, hedge fund manager John Paulson earned over $5 billion in 2010 alone.

The manager now has to grow the fund by over 110% before he has clawed back the losses and starts to earn performance fees again. This requires two things to happen; a massively risky investment  bet (speculation) and a huge amount of good luck for the bet two pay off! According to The Economist last year nearly 90% of hedge funds were still below their 2007 high water mark. In reality, our intrepid fund manager may simply close the fund and start a new one with no high water mark to beat.

We have already started to see an increase in the number of hedge funds closing but expect to see many more in the coming months.

While the above example is massively simplified and refers to extreme returns for hedge funds, the same principles hold true for retail investment funds such as Absolute Return funds which often now include performance fees. Look at the example above again and decide whether this move is to help investors or benefit fund managers.

Most investors have no idea what they are paying in investment fees and transaction costs each year. At Forty Two Wealth Management we are acutely aware of the impact of costs on investment returns and work very hard to keep these as low as possible. Often when we show new clients the level of fees they are suffering they are horrified. Understanding your existing investment portfolio, including the level of fees deducted, is the first step towards a successful investment experience.

 

Posted in Investing Your Money, Truth About Money | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Waste Not

I noticed an article in The Times today which got me thinking about the real difference between Financial Planning and traditional Financial Advice.

The article highlighted that the UK Government has “wasted” £31 billion in the last two years. Yes that is thirty one thousand million pounds! The Government has penciled in a total of £81 billion of public spending cuts over the course of the current parliament so £31 billion isn’t small change!

Two years ago David Cameron asked the TopShop owner Philip Green to look over government spending and Green reported that “no business could survive if it wasted money the way governments do”. The Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude is quoted as saying “for too long there has been no coherent strategy to make Government operate more efficiently”.

Why did this make me think about Financial Planning and Financial Advice? It is not just Government or big businesses that need to put their financial house in order and get on a solid footing; families need to do so too.

The key to good financial planning is a well defined “coherent strategy” to manage financial affairs towards the achievement of clearly defined financial goals. Traditional Financial Advice, while often technically very good in its own right, tends to try and solve specific financial problems in isolation – usually with the sale of a financial product. However, without a clearly defined long term coherent strategy IFAs are merely treating the symptoms of any condition rather than fixing the root cause. It is like Elastoplast financial planning!

Fortunately, Financial Planning isn’t rocket science, we don’t need to be investment gurus with superhuman insight into the future of markets. Financial Planning is merely a matter of having a clearly defined end goal to aim for (this usually requires a lifetime cashflow forecast to be prepared and regularly updated). Then we just need to take the necessary action to achieve the desired outcome. Sometimes the required action appears overwhelming at first but often a few simple steps can help us overcome any obstacles with a minimum of pain. The first step is to ensure that waste is minimised. In a personal financial plan waste can take many forms including;

  • paying too much tax
  • not achieving a decent rate of interest on savings accounts
  • high fund management fees
  • overpaying for under-performing investment funds
  • excessive adviser commissions on the sale of financial products
  • paying too much interest on borrowings
  • spending frivolously on things we neither need nor really want but which “seemed like a good idea at the time”

Start 2012 by taking a few simple steps

  1. make a detailed spending plan and stick to it.
  2. review the rate of interest you are receiving on any savings and move to a better account if necessary
  3. review  the cost of your borrowings, including short term borrowing such as credit cards, and minimise waste by paying this off or switching to lower rares.
  4. review the performance and fees on you investment portfolio to make sure you are getting what you are paying for

If you need help with any of this just let us know.

If the Government had been able to cut down on waste over the last 2 years it would already have been 1/3rd of the way towards the planned cost savings without any financial hardship at all. If you cut out financial waste you will make significant progress before you even notice.

Posted in Truth About Money, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is the FTSE 100 really a measure of UK companies?

The FTSE 100 index of the UK’s top 100 companies is supposed to be representative of the UK stockmarket but is it?

The list of the UK’s biggest 100 companies changes on Monday (19th December) at which point 3 companies will be relegated and 3 new companies will gain promotion into the stockmarket premier league. There is nothing unusual about this; the companies in the FTSE 100 change every quarter but in recent years the UK market has become increasingly non-UK.

The three companies leaving the FTSE 100 are:

  • Inmarsat – which started life as a provider of international marine satellites and is now involved in a wide range of satellite technology including mobile broadband. Although it listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2005, it has a strong US focus, reports and pays dividends in Dollars
  • Investec – a South African financial services company involved in banking and investment markets around the world. Its shares are listed in both Johannesburg and London.
  • Lonmin – “the worlds third largest primary platinum producer. The company was original part of Lohnro, memorably described as ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism by Edward Heath’. Xstrata, another FTSE 100 miner (with Swiss domicile) owns nearly 25% of Lonmin.” Source: www.techlink.co.uk

The three companies which replace them are:

  • CRH – a Dublin-based construction company with international business interests
  • Polymetal International – a Jersey-domiciled company with Gold and Silver mines in Russia. It originally listed on the Moscow stock exchange before moving to London
  • Evraz – Russia’s biggest steel maker

It is clear from this that the UK stock market is representative of more than just the UK. It is increasingly becoming an indicator of global markets. This should be good news as Forty Two are strong advocates of global diversification. However, gaining exposure to global economies through just 100 companies listed in the UK concentrates investment risk in a very focused manner. We strongly recommend genuine global diversification by investing in the companies of which make up MSCI world index or the FTSE World index.

Posted in Investing Your Money | Leave a comment

Happy talk, keep talkin’ happy talk

At this time of year many people make PLANS for the future. We often make New Year’s resolutions – which are usually about things we are going to stop doing or things we don’t really want to do but feel obliged (often shamed) to do like go on a diet or join a gym. This  often takes the form of short term ACTIONS.

Surely, we should start with the big VISION not the mundane tasks?

In fact, once we have a clear VISION we often find that the strength of the vision pulls us to take the necessary steps to achieve our goals like some giant magnet. Without a clear VISION we often need to force ourselves to take actions we really don’t want to. When we reluctantly take action we often find the discipline to stick to the plan is lacking.

This year, instead of starting with some resolutions for next year try PLANNING ahead for the YEARS to come. Really let your IMAGINATION go wild and DREAM.

I would like to thank my friend and fellow IFP Board member Andrew Brook-Dobson of Harrogate based Accredited Financial Planning Firm Brook-Dobson Breer for bringing the following short video to my attention recently. It only lasts for a little under 2 minutes which isn’t a lot of time to give up for something that could change your life.

WATCH THE VIDEO then let your mind start thinking about the questions and JUST DREAM.*

Sometimes DREAMS really can come true but only if we move them from DREAMS to PLANS, we IMPLEMENT OUR PLANS and MONITOR PROGRESS toward our goals.

However, the first stage must be to DREAM. If you don’t have a dream how you gonna have a dream come true?

 

*I have no connection with the “5″ book or Compendium Incorporated, in fact I haven’t even read it but the video says everything I need to hear.

Posted in Meaning of Money, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

Celebrate Good Times C’mon…….

So sang Kool And The Gang back in 1980. Well, the good times are back, apparently.

Last week the UK stock market had its best week since 2009 and the upswing continued yesterday as France and Germany appeared ready to take over Europe without the need for armies to march.

So is this the start of a new era in financial prosperity or the start of a market recovery just like March 2009? Probably not but in February 2009 nobody expected the recovery that followed. It’s hard to believe now as it seems a lifetime away but 2009 was one of the best years on record form the UK stock market.

What should investors do now?

Pile cash into the markets on the back of renewed investment confidence?

Pull money out on the upswing taking profits, or at least reducing losses, and protect what you can of your hard earned funds?

Neither. Nobody knows what the short term future holds so simply stick to the plan.

If you don’t have a plan GET ONE, then stick to it!

If you don’t know what a plan is ASK US. We’ll show you and help you build a proper plan – then stick to it!

By now you should be getting the message; markets go up and down like a yo-yo on any hint of news (substantiated or not) but in the long run it’s just a distraction. Only a well designed and implemented financial plan really makes a lasting difference but you must have the confidence and discipline to stick to it and see it through.

Posted in Investing Your Money | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Rolling dice or playing poker?

According to today’s Financial Times, “The Bank of England signaled it was likely to pump billions into the economy, after slashing its forecasts for inflation on Wednesday and saying output was likely to stagnate until next summer.” (my emphasis)

Financial markets around the world seem to be predicting poor results for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, nobody is any good at forecasting so we can completely ignore the doom mongers.

Also, data from around the world shows that there is no direct link between poor economic results (GDP) and investment returns (such as stock markets) in the short term. Of course, investment markets will perform badly if economies falter indefinitely but there is no way to predict either the short or long term, even though many investment professionals think they can do so.

In a recent New York Times article Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, showed conclusive evidence of “over-confidence bias” in practice. The article is a fascinating read and gives real insight into how investors and markets behave.

Remember that when someone sells an investment, whether Shares, Corporate Bonds or Government Bonds (including those of Greece, Italy, Spain, France or the United States) someone else buys it. The person selling thinks the asset is overpriced and the person buying it thinks it is under priced – they can’t both be right!

Kahneman points out that “The subjective experience of traders is that they are making sensible educated guesses in a situation of great uncertainty. In highly efficient markets, however, educated guesses are not more accurate than blind guesses.”

He also observes that “for the large majority of fund managers the selection of stocks is more like rolling dice than like playing poker”.

The article also shows that investors trade too much but the most active traders perform significantly worse than the least active traders. In fact, the vast majority of investors would have “done better by taking a nap rather than acting on their ideas”. Perhaps most contentiously he shows that women make better investors than men.

So go on, read the article then get on with living your life, or just take a nap. Whatever you do stay calm, the current storm will pass like others before it.

Posted in Behavioural Finance, Truth About Money | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Beat the goalie

It seems I can’t turn on the TV these days without Robert Peston whinging on about the European Debt Crisis and the possible collapse of the Euro. The same is also true of radio and the printed press. So what is really going on and what should we do?

Lets be honest, Greece is effectively bankrupt and Italy, Spain and probably others, aren’t far behind. There was panic in the markets last week when one of the main ratings agencies (S&P) mistakenly published a downgraded rating of France’s credit worthiness on its website. So clearly there is a problem and clearly markets are worried about the outcome.

The implication being extrapolated from all of this is that investors should do something, or as financial folks might say, take proactive measures. I can almost hear the financial pundits scream, “Whatever you are doing now obviously isn’t working so change while you still can. Protect what is left of your investments before the Eurozone implodes……….”

Hang on a minute. Lets look at this logically. All the research available shows that investors consistently harm themselves by trading too much. Invariably, investors sell investments after a loss and run away to lick their wounds just before a spectacular recovery. Equally, investors often pile into markets at the height of a bubble, usually just before the bubble bursts and it all comes crashing down. Study after study shows that doing nothing, or rather being disciplined and sticking to the long term plan, invariably leads to better outcomes than taking action in the heat of the moment in the middle of a “crisis”. Bear in mind markets are irrational and driven by human emotions.

At the Institute of Financial Planning (IFP) Scottish Conference yesterday, I heard Professor Steve Thomas of CASS Business School speak about behavioural biases that affect investor decisions (usually for the worse). Then, when I went home my son and I watched the Top Gear presenter James May’s program Man Lab in which he tried to learn how to take the perfect penalty kick. These two events got me thinking about a study carried out a few years ago by some Israeli psychologists which examined the actions of top goal keepers trying to save penalty kicks. The study, “Action Bias among Elite Soccer Goal Keepers: The Case of Penalty Kicks”, was originally published in the Journal of Economic Psychology. If you really want to trudge through the detail you can click here and download a copy.

I will summarise the findings of the article for those you with better things to do with your time. Basically, goal keepers almost always dive left or right to save a penalty kick, even though they would have a far higher probability of saving it if they stayed in the center and didn’t dive at all. The psychologists hypothesised that the reason goal keepers dive, even though they know they shouldn’t, is that it feels worse to let in the goal having done nothing than having at least “tried” even though the end result was still the same.

The study then went on to show the same psychology is at work in investment markets, business management and Government (particularly with regards to economic policy). In all cases action is often taken to avoid potential critiscism (or personal feelings of remorse) over not trying rather than because it was the right thing to do.

So what should investors do at the moment – stand still in the middle of the goal. Don’t make any knee jerk reactions, just stick to the plan. We have been in situations like this before and will be in situations like this again. History shows us time and time again that a well diversified portfolio will produce respectable results in the end.

Posted in Behavioural Finance | Leave a comment

Forty Two Wealth Management LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Forty Two Wealth Management LLP is a limited Liability Partnership registered in Scotland (S0301883)

Registered Office: 11 Portland Road, Kilmarnock, KA1 2BT.