• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About This Website
    • A polite reminder
  • How To
    • Use this website and benefit from the subscription option
    • Pick a financial adviser
    • Ensure your investment adviser is delivering good value
    • Get expert help with running your own portfolio
    • Pick a ‘tax wrapper’
    • Pick a Trading Platform
    • Diversify a portfolio in today’s world
    • Invest in line with your conscience
    • Research (screen for) a specific fund requirement (m)
    • Pick a fund for the future or how to be a contrarian (m)
    • Find the ‘next best thing’ and make rational sell decisions (fund switching) (m)
    • Time investment sales (skim profits) (m)
    • Interpret a Morningstar X-Ray (m)
    • Use Trustnet for Research (m)
    • How to review a neglected portfolio when the world has moved on (m)
  • *Important Information*
  • Real World
    • A Frank Introduction to Investing
    • Costs
    • Investment Risk – Your Starter For 10
    • How are advisers fees worked out?
    • 10+ top tips for investors
    • An actual portfolio review (m)
    • Benchmarks – a thorny subject
    • Disinvestment from fossil fuel businesses – are there better options?
  • Tales of the Unexpected
    • Lola
    • Round and Round the Mulberry Bush
    • FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and the lazy mind.
    • Property Development Schemes
  • For More Experienced Investors
  • Glossary with a Difference
  • Member Only Content (M)
    • Example of simple cash flow planner (m)
    • Long Reads
      • What is market shorting and is it a bad thing?
      • How to conduct a periodic portfolio review (m)
      • Investing without management (passively) – a better way? (m)
  • Portfolios and Funds (m)
    • Lessons in Portfolio Construction and Maintenance – Introduction
      • High Level Asset Allocation
      • Selecting Funds
      • Cash Flow and Tax Issues in Portfolio Construction
      • Setting Objectives and Understanding Risks
      • A suggested portfolio for Alex Bright
  • Multi Asset Academy (m)
    • Some basic basics
    • Who are Vanguard?
    • Are multi-asset funds expensive?
    • Cheap and cheerful?
    • Its all about asset allocation, but…
    • Myth and misunderstandings
    • Taking money out of multi asset funds – the pros and cons
    • Distribution funds – the forerunner of multi asset investing?
    • DIY Multi Asset – adding risk controls
    • Benchmark Fog
  • Member Login
  • Logout

Its Not Harry

Comment and opinion for retail investors in the UK

Mark Potter

When ‘insurance’ maybe doesn’t pay out.

29th May 2019 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

I read today on the Bloomberg new service that the yield on US Treasuries (which is a quick way of summarising the price of US Government bonds) has fallen to a level that implies the US Federal reserve will CUT interest rates 3 times next year. That is not altogether what one might predict!

It seems that worries about trade wars and other factors are prompting big players to buy Treasuries, either to profit from such rate cuts, or because they think there will be a US recession, or both. Apparently there is a strong view that such a recession is on the way. If there is and bank rates fall then the ‘hedge’ might work and provide some compensation when equity prices collapse.

But the idea of a US recession is hardly good news. Much as we don’t rejoice in making an insurance claim when some disaster happens, we are unlikely to be happy to make a bit on our exposure to the US bond market if we are seeing our equity portfolios trashed.

The world economies are not all moving in synch …

What if US interest rates don’t fall? With very high employment levels and Trump’s tariffs likely to push up inflation, then there is some probability that they won’t. They may even go up more. In that case, the yield on Treasuries will need to rise and values will fall. That may also be bad news for equity markets and furthermore at some stage a recession will happen. So there could be a double whammy.

In that case investors will have to ponder the storm damage and realise that the insurance is not going to help.

I take the view that as political risk remains (unusually) the most significant and that means normal economic considerations are out the window, it is best not to bet on the direction of interest rates but to assume a revaluation downwards in equity markets as troubles build up. In that case, I prefer to hold cash.

Filed Under: Asset Allocation, Economics, Education, Markets

Portfolio Review Process

29th May 2019 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

As promised the first part of the Real World portfolio review demonstration is now available to subscribers. It includes links to summary data that will be used as part of the process. The article will grow gradually as I have time to write it and hopefully at a pace that allows interested readers to get to grips with the material and ask any questions.

Filed Under: Announcements, Portfolios

Nothing for something

29th May 2019 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

I have commented in the past that financial advisers and wealth managers are currently in love with what are called multi asset solutions. I have deep suspicions about many of these offerings which sound to me like a re-invention of the bad old life assurance bonds that were often used by advisers to package up asset management processes in such a way that they could ‘milk’ large fees from the clients’ funds.

When one ‘rip off’ gets outlawed, they think of another one…

Reading a trade publication produced by Incisive Media which is focused on the multi asset fund management story I extracted a number of comments from experienced objective writers and from the fund managers offering these solutions that did nothing to disperse my concerns.

An ‘old hand’ like myself retraced the history of advisers offering ‘managed funds’ back to the aforesaid life assurance bonds with their 5% initial commissions and up to 1% a year trail fee (paid for doing nothing most of the time). He clearly had the same sceptical view as me – we have both been around the block, as they say.

A fund manager stated that as consumers would be expected to pay 2% per annum as the cost of owning an investment and 1% would go to the IFA, and 0.25% to the dealing platform, that left 0.75% for his firm to actually look after the money, which he thought was fine. He did not comment on the obvious disparity of the adviser charging 1% for doing nothing other than funnel money in his direction.

Another analyst confirmed that the multi asset offerings that access investment markets using ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds – see Glossary) and passive investments, on average made more money than products that invested in a range of the supplier’s in house funds and the latter in turn make more money on average than offerings that invest in a wider market and have ‘double’ fees as a result. So fees impact on performance. But the differences in fees between these variants was much smaller than the level of advisers’ fees!

I have believed for a very long time that an investment process that involves a client filling in a simplistic questionnaire to deliver a numeric score and then be given a ‘managed’ or multi asset portfolio that is maintained by an institution to meet an investment objective that is claimed to be consistent with that score based on quantitive modelling is for a start intellectually dubious.

But what is worse, is that having gone through that process, most advisers will do nothing but ‘pipeline’ the reporting of the portfolio from the institutional fund manager on to the client and do absolutely nothing else unless asked to by the client. Oh joy, have we got back to 1% trail commission and paying advisers to play golf and sail their yachts!

I am not by the way saying that appropriate multi assets solutions will not suit some requirements – there are good ones at decent prices that can be part of a portfolio or in rare cases, would be sensible for an entire portfolio. I am just saying that investors need to know who is doing the ‘heavy lifting’ in looking after their money and who is laughing all the way to the bank.

Filed Under: Cost of investing, Rants

The lies have it

20th May 2019 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

Investment fund managers are usually well educated people and the best ones have talent and intelligence too. Sometimes it is interesting to read what they publish about their own research, which can be very wide ranging.

A fund I have known for many years, in fact even in forms before it got its current name, is the Jupiter Absolute Return fund. This is run by Dr James Cluney, who got his PhD researching the processes of stock market shorting in the UK and elsewhere. His fund tends to be a sort of parachute, slowing portfolio losses when things are really going wrong, but being a bit of extra weight to carry when markets are soaring away.

He correctly predicted the market sell off in 2018 and more or less protected his investors from losses. This year, he has lost money and although that is to be expected if markets go up when logically they shouldn’t, I wanted to see if he had commented on the reasons. Investors may be tempted to sell out if they just read the recent numbers.

I have not so far found a very recent article or interview but I did find a fascinating and indeed quite insightful piece into how share valuations are now influenced by what is a called the ‘narrative’ effect. Essentially this is the flow of news, both true and ‘managed’ (ie to suit the issuer’s purpose) that is available from both traditional sources and more often than ever, social media.

For example, he explains that he has been ‘shorting” Tesla shares, so he is one of the people Elon Musk hates. On every technical measure used by fund mangers, shorting Tesla shares is logical, but we know that Elon Musk does his utmost (including illegally recently) to pump up the Tesla share price by using media of all types, essentially trying to control the Tesla news narrative. We can’t him blame for that unless he wonders off into telling ‘porkies’!

Another example might be the floatation of Lyft and Uber. In the case of Uber, we even had the company complying with the law by stating it may never make a profit, but so managing the other ‘facts’ (most of which are irrelevant when examined carefully) that is raised billions of pounds from investors who may never get paid a dividend! That it stretching optimism to its limits and beyond.

As a cautious fund manager, whose objective is to preserve client capital, Dr Cluney has to take a view about whether he can afford to stick to his convictions based on real data and yet, at least for now, see share prices move in line with what is basically propaganda, or give up and ‘go with the flow’. I wrote another post recently about the option of momentum investing, for members.

In his article he expresses concern that as people follow the lead of the US president by manipulating the facts, telling straight lies and blustering, then it becomes difficult to make decisions based on facts, because there may be more information around that is pure ‘fog’ designed to hide the reality from investors than it is possible to see through. One might add that like many motorway drivers there are plenty of investors happy to carry on at full speed even though they have no idea what is a few dozen meters ahead of them.

As Mr Musk found out, blatantly ‘pumping’ a share price with a misleading announcement will be punished by regulators. However, there are techniques that may not be so easily spotted. According to Dr Cluney, algorithmic research tools read words in media content and make positive or negative judgements according to the words counted. But people working in the investor relations departments of businesses know that! So they can use their writing skills to fill up press releases, tweets and other social media posts with positive words, even if out of context (algorithms not being so intelligent) and get a share onto broker ‘buy’ lists even when the underlying truths was negative!

As usual, we can’t know what will cause the next market crash – it is usually one of the ‘unknown unknowns’. But I would have a small bet on fiction having at least temporarily defeated fact being major contributor.

Filed Under: Education, Funds, Markets

Portfolio reviews – practical demonstration (m)

14th May 2019 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

You need to be logged in to view this content. Please Log In. Not a Member? Join Us

Filed Under: Announcements, Portfolios

Up, up and away?

13th May 2019 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

Readers may have noticed that global stock markets, especially the US markets, seem very resilient to bad news. The stalling of talks on a US/China trade deal have whittled off part of this calendar year’s upside, but that is only some 3% against an 18% or so gain. There appears to be optimism in the US that the Chinese will cave in (but the Americans don’t really have an objective view in my opinion).

A comment from a trader quoted by Bloomberg today possibly reflects the attitude of some participants. To paraphrase – after a strong rise in markets a 7% or so setback is to be expected and investors need to focus not on the worries that caused the setback, but on what price is low enough for them to buy more of their favourite stocks.

That is frankly over optimistic (I put it politely). Of course, we know markets can move with momentum and that will usually push them both up and down beyond the right price relative to the value on offer. But momentum reverses and it is unwise not to remember that.

An interesting fact in the UK balance of trade data (the worst ever) published last week was that a larger than average chunk of the import balances was purchases of gold.

I have said before that if a significant number of investors with big money are not so confident about markets, it usually shows in the direction of the gold price. The relative balance of buyers to sellers is of course the main driver of that price, so maybe that bit of data is an indicator that in the UK a least, people are beginning to hedge their market positions more than they have been.

On reviewing the range of data I have seen of late, I can’t say I would want to rush in and top up my investments at current prices, or even at 7% lower prices. I have commented in other recent (member only) posts on options for speculating a little at the end of a bull market cycle, but the easy option is to hold plenty of cash and wait until there are rock bottom prices!

Filed Under: Markets, Trading

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 75
  • Page 76
  • Page 77
  • Page 78
  • Page 79
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 97
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Mid-month Musings – September 2026
  • Deep Dive – September 2026
  • Mid Month Musings with Mark (not me!)
  • Thank You
  • Deep Dive – August 2026

Archives

Categories

  • Academic theory
  • Announcements
  • Asset Allocation
  • Basics
  • Cost of investing
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Funds
  • House rules
  • Humour
  • Innovation
  • Markets
  • Members Only
  • Monthly commentary
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Passives and Trackers
  • Politics
  • Portfolios
  • Rants
  • Research tools
  • Site Content
  • Sustainability/ESG
  • Trading
  • Uncategorised