• 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

Markets

Monday mashup – brave new world?

23rd March 2020 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

As I have been posting much more frequently recently to offer readers some insights during difficult times, this week’s meandering heads off into the future and attempts, Beethoven like, to find leisurely pastoral scenes after a frightening storm. But only finds something less attractive.

So this is an opinion piece and you can stop reading now if you were only expecting market commentary.

A potted history

I have read some serious commentators (Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer, for example) pointing out that the reaction of the UK government to the coronavirus threat effectively makes a bonfire of everything Conservatives in the UK claimed they believed in. For very good reasons, the UK will have a public spending budget not seen since WW2, life dictated at a microscopic level by the state (not nanny state, more like Big Brother), nationalised railways (just to start, wait for more), enhanced State benefits and so on.

My thinking has for a few weeks been that whatever the economic consequences of the virus, there will in time be a seismic change in the relationships and rewards in the capitalist system.

The world will be different for investors from now on, I think

When I was training to be a Chartered Secretary, just pre-Thatcher in the 1980’s, we were taught that big companies were ideally governed in the interest of stakeholders, not just shareholders. Other interests might include employees, pensioners of the business, consumers, the environment and even the public purse. In those times there was much talk of putting representatives of these other interest groups, especially employees, on company boards.

That seemed civilised to me. The large corporates have been identified as self perpetuating entities that in some cases are larger and more powerful than governments right back to the days of the Dutch East India Company, who had the largest military in the world. We have had the American ‘corporate robber barons’ like Carnegie, Rockefeller, van der Bilt and maybe now Zuckerberg and Bezos effectively controlling important parts of the largest global economies.

The US writer Thomas Pynchon suggests that the already completed phase of evolution after humanity is the American Corporation. Y N Harari in his best selling book ‘Sapiens’ explores at some length the management of human interests by corporations and collective systems, with the obvious diametric opposite to the corporation being the truly Communist state, like North Korea.

In response to the outrageous use of power by the owners of corporations, the USA developed anti-trust legislation and anti-monopoly law was a big discussion topic when I was studying economics. In those days everyone feared IBM! As a student I felt that checks and balances were at least an objective of the elected representatives in a democracy.

Come the mid 1980s and Reagan and Thatcher and the world changed totally, switching hugely in favour of capitalists (in the economic not political sense) and even more in favour of the managers (directors) of companies. As time went by, even the interest of shareholders seemed to be demoted behind the managers’ remuneration packages and the earnings of corporate lawyers, bankers and anyone powerful enough to get their nose in the trough.

Some global governments held back this rapid rebalancing of economic interests but in general the economies of those countries (say France, for example) did less well. The use and abuse of the unfettered financial system, especially in the selling of vast amounts of debt, boosted the economies of the marauding members of the even freer free market.

Problem with juggling too many balls is that if you drop one, you will usually drop the lot

The financial crisis brought that to an abrupt halt but the sinners were not just forgiven but bailed out with public money and made ready to rush off again in pursuit of directors’ remuneration and spending profit or even borrowing to buy back shares (which makes the business more of a stand alone entity, not answerable to anyone).

Of course, to keep governments sweet, it was necessary for the very biggest and often shadowy beneficiaries to spend their small change on lobbying, funding election campaigns and buying up the mass media to keep the message right. At least that has been true in the USA, the stock market capitalisation of whose businesses is more than all the rest put together (never mind the wealth not in listed shares).

A body blow, from an unexpected quarter

That potted history brings us to Covid-19. Now – The ” ” Strikes Back. Fill in the space according to your personal view of the world.

It is well known that modern capitalism only works because of insatiable consumption. Insatiable consumption will destroy the environment without major changes to the mix of goods and services consumed. If I was ‘the environment’, I would work out that my best defence strategy would be to attack the consumers and directly reduce consumption. It works really fast!

I like to look at history for lessons about cyclical changes – things like changes in world domination, plagues, technological step changes, societal evolution. Nothing is new under the sun, a wise man once wrote.

Now I am not a sci-fi writer even if my readers think I am prone to flights of fancy, and I have developed a sceptical opinion of both religion and philosophy (I am too prosaic), so will stick to observing what is happening and what might follow.

  • What is happening right now is that all over the world nation states are dictating what people and businesses do. Like they usually do in China.
  • Everyone in the UK who wanted to privatise the NHS now loves it to bits, especially those with a fever and a cough (they say there are no atheists on a sinking ship).
  • Decent business owners are directing their facilities to help out and the way companies react now will have long term impacts on their future prospects with consumers.
  • Politicians who pursued austerity to the point of (probably) killing citizens are now endorsing huge amounts of government spending and libertarians who usually want to inhibit the government’s ability to keep an eye on what we all do are not batting an eyelid at the passing of unreviewed legislation to grant powers even Mr Putin would be happy with!
  • ‘Safe’ investments in high quality bonds or fixed interested securities and even gold are being sold in huge amounts, with the only asset in demand being hard currency (probably US dollars). Portfolios whose diversity depended on the classic equity/bond mix are losing less money than the equity markets, but still losing money rapidly. Cash is king.

Unprecedented is an over-used word, but in this case it is the right one. The financial aspects are not a surprise but the political and social aspects are new to everyone who has not lived through a war.

What will that mean for the future?

History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes, attributed to Mark Twain but probably a contraction of a more complicated analysis he made. It’s a good point nonetheless.

Of course until we see a slowdown in the rate of infections, we can’t realistically assess the future, because we have no sensible timescale nor can we measure the damage.

But we can expect the relative status of the state to move back towards the level we saw after the second world war.

Well governed businesses will more likely survive than the ‘share buyback/fat directors’ bonuses’ businesses that may have been stock market darlings until now. So the mix of interests and actors in the financial world will be different, just as it was after the 2008 crisis.

That means we as investors need to think very carefully not just about the countries and sectors we invest in (at decent prices), but to focus on the sort of companies, especially in terms of sustainability and governance. And I would add another letter to the ESG acronym – T – ESGT, for environment, sustainability, governance and tax paying.

All the borrowing we are now seeing will potentially go into asset prices if governments don’t change their tactics on taxation. I think this time they they will expect a payback from business for preserving the daily heroin fix of consumption. And they may even be supplying the ‘methadone’ of public spending as a substitute.

It probably goes too far to say that capitalism is going into rehab but it will need to moderate its habits.

Filed Under: Economics, Markets, Politics, Portfolios, Rants

Clues? (m)

21st March 2020 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: Asset Allocation, Education, Markets, Portfolios

When will markets hit the bottom? (m)

19th March 2020 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

The facile answer to that is that we will only know after the event!

The message I want to convey today is that stock market values fall most dramatically when the cycle that precedes the fall was longest and had extended into ‘over valuation’. But that is not just because confidence is eroded and people start to think about investing on a valuation rather than a momentum basis.

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

Filed Under: Markets, Members Only

Monday mashup – Desperate measures?

16th March 2020 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

This morning a coalition of central banks in the most influential countries in financial market terms has announced a huge package of liquidity support and lower interest rates, yet markets have opened with sharp falls.

This is for much the same reason as when I wrote my blog entitled ‘Fed mis-step?’. The dramatic scale of the assistance package prompts market participants to think that the situation is utterly desperate.

I think the news will remain bad for a while, but they say that it is always darkest before dawn.

On the other hand, at times like this where there is overwhelming systemic risk, fixed income assets start to lose value rather than offer their usual diversification characteristics, because no-one wants to buy anything. That creates a liquidity crisis, which is rather like throwing a tool bag of spanners into the global financial system. So the authorities have to try and avoid that and their actions today are consistent with that threat.

My current assessment, which of course evolves as the world reacts to the potential progress of the virus, is that equity valuations will keep falling until there is evidence that the drastic preventative measures have worked.

That means that share valuations will likely be the most ‘over-sold’ they have been in my lifetime at some point and if the virus recedes, investors with cash will need to act quickly to pick up bargains.

It has to be remembered that it is the potential threat of a massive pandemic that is driving negative sentiment – the actual number of cases is very small relative to population and the number of deaths is minuscule as a proportion of populations – at the moment. So if the illness caused by the virus is more or less contained within the resources available, which will vary from place to place, the eventual relief will be massive.

Of course, this virus may be the start of a long term fundamental change in human activity. Consumerism has become the opium of the people, succeeding religion in Marx’s aphorism and capitalism is now about 70% driven by consumption. If that falls away permanently, a recession would be truly structural and last a long time.

Such major structural changes are in fact normal – think of how the world differs from that of the Victorian era, the interwar years or even the 1960’s. The current cycle of economic restructuring and resource sharing began in the 1980s in my judgement.

One could propose that global financial systems are in the end always regulated by social or human issues and that the returns to capital had been lately pushed to out of proportion levels relative to other stakeholders, like ordinary people and the environment. That is not to propose that there is better way of managing economic resources than capitalism – just that the balance of interests has been due for a correction for a while.

Filed Under: Economics, Markets, Monthly commentary

What to buy?

14th March 2020 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

A follow on question to my last blog post about timing re-entry to markets must be ‘what would you buy?’

At an asset class level, that is easy to answer: equities. With global interest rates back down to super low level, bonds will have served their defensive role and maybe do a bit more, but are not likely to be at bargain basement prices.

It is well known that although many fund managers can be criticised for not adding much value in rising markets when compared with the raw market indices, it is fairly easy to see that passive, index tracking funds and ETFs lose more money in falling markets. In other words most actively managed funds have at least some defensive characteristics.

It follows that passive global index tracker funds have probably sold off more than the sort of funds we own. I checked that out using the well regarded Vanguard Lifestyle Equity range and it is certainly true.

So as a quick way of getting exposure to equities while we wait and see what permanent changes are going to result from the current market crash (there are always some), buying into a global passives fund or ETF sounds like a good call to me.

I will write more about this after doing some detailed research.

Filed Under: Asset Allocation, Markets, Uncategorised

Catch a falling knife?

14th March 2020 by Mark Potter Leave a Comment

The title is the investment market cliche for buying into a rapidly collapsing market or share price. It is pretty self explanatory – most people will consider the risk of grabbing the sharp blade with painful results to be too great.

How can one apply a logical process to timing new purchases into a market that, as now, is manifestly much cheaper but could get cheaper still?

Firstly, my experience is that not even the most talented of investment experts ever know the exact bottom of a market until some time after the downward trend has permanently reversed. One reason for that is that there is plenty of algorithm driven trading in the markets these days, so short term reversals may just be computers buying, not people deciding the crisis is over.

A logical approach

I tend to make my decisions using the ‘opportunity cost’ approach. In other words what happens if I don’t invest and miss the the lowest price on the one hand versus what’s happens if I do invest and the price falls a lot more?

Assuming that my readers are like me with some of their assets in the market in diversified portfolios, but plenty of cash on hand, here is how one can work through the logic.

Keep calm and keep your cash? I personally will be doing that for now.

If you don’t invest and miss the bottom, your invested assets will be going back up and your cash is still available to invest when assets are cheaper than they were, albeit not the very cheapest they have been. The current correction is sharp enough for one to observe the reversal after it is set in and very likely still buy at cheaper prices than we saw a month ago.

If you do invest and the market falls more, both your invested assets AND your new assets fall and you have less cash to buy more when the reversal can be confidently expected to be set in. In addition, your stress level will go up.

It is obvious that this pair of risks is not symmetrical. The first option means losing out on some upside but still gaining something from having prudently reserved cash; the second involves a distinct misjudgment with an immediate cost and the dilution of future opportunities.

Of course, no one can be absolutely certain that a bear market has ended and a bull one has begun and some decisions to buy might just by luck be very close to the bottom.

Upslope not downslope

My approach is to aim to purchase on the upside slope of a V shaped recovery in prices, not the the downside slope. Furthermore, as I can only observe a promising rather than a certain turn around, I will buy very modestly to start with, investing larger slices of money as I become more confident. My upside slope might be a short term ‘bounce’ only.

One other point I have made recently that I want to restate is that when markets are panicking, it is really important to remember that in the end share prices and bond prices are determined by fundamentals (ie facts about interest rates, profits, dividends and so on) even if In the short term they are determined by human behaviour, just like the supply of toilet paper!

So until there is positive news that the spread of Covid-19 is contained and new case numbers are falling across the globe, I don’t see any reason to be optimistic about share prices, even if there are short term improvements in the market indices.

Readers need to think about their personal asset mix and risk tolerance and apply the sort of considered logis described above. I will post blogs frequently about my judgement on current market valuations.

In summary, at the moment I am saying: cheap, maybe good value, but still at risk of extreme volatility.

Filed Under: Markets

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 24
  • Page 25
  • Page 26
  • Page 27
  • Page 28
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 36
  • 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