Who are you KID-ing? Understanding the ongoing charge figure of an investment trust

Many of us retirement-focused investors have been won over by the charms of income-orientated investment trusts.

And when buying such trusts, in recent months we’ve become accustomed to formally acknowledging – via a tick box at our online broker – that we’ve read each trust’s Key Information Document (KID) at the time of purchase.

Some investors, I’m sure, do assiduously read KIDs.

But many more, I suspect, do not – or have briefly skimmed them once.

Personally, I don’t find them to be particularly useful documents, but maybe that’s just me. Read a KID, though, and it’s not difficult for the eagle-eyed to note that trusts’ costs, as disclosed within the KID, differ from the ongoing charges (or OCF) figure quoted in trusts’ prospectuses and monthly returns, and on popular information services such as Morningstar.

For example, the City of London income-centric investment trust has an OCF of 0.41%, recently reduced from 0.42%.

City of London’s KID, though, lists ‘other charges’ of 0.85%.

Which figure is correct? Why are there two very different figures given for seemingly the same lump of costs? Is some sort of investor rip-off taking place?

Monevator reader Tony B e-mailed us about just such a situation. What was going on, he asked.

Apples and oranges

At which point, let me refer back to a little ancient history.

Many years ago, back in the days of the Total Expense Ratio – the forerunner of today’s OCF – I’d encountered something similar in the context of index trackers.

The culprit? A Financial Services Authority-mandated formula for calculating costs, which had specified the inclusion of some costs that the tracker industry had traditionally excluded from its calculations.

Nothing underhand was happening, and the differences between the two calculations showed up in each tracker’s tracking error.

It was possible that something very similar was going on here, I reasoned. But I couldn’t know for sure that this was the case.

For valuable readers like Tony B, we like to go the extra mile to get to the facts.

Call the experts

So I picked up the phone and called the Association of Investment Companies (AIC), which is the trade association representing investment trusts.

I knew it had been running a vociferous media campaign, arguing against the unthinking imposition of KIDs on the investment trust industry.

Where do KIDs come from? Imposed Europe-wide on the collective investment industry at the start of 2018, KIDs caused a number of difficulties, specifically in terms of the measurement of risk and performance. So much so, that open-ended investment funds (OEICS) have now been exempted from the requirement until 2022, by which time it is hoped that the problems with them can be fixed. But closed-end funds – investment trusts, in other words – haven’t been granted equal exemption.

Ever helpful, the AIC provided me with chapter and verse. So here, thanks to Ian Sayers, the AIC’s chief executive, and Annabel Brodie‑Smith, the AIC’s communications director, is the low-down on what Monevator readers need to know about charges and KIDs.

The facts, and just the facts

• Every investment company¹ KID follows a standardised cost disclosure, showing a projection of the impact of costs over the next one, three, and five years. The ‘other ongoing charges’ section of the KID shows the costs of the investment company managing its investments and the costs of running the company, such as accounting charges, but it also includes the costs of borrowing and stock lending.

• On the other hand, the standard AIC-defined methodology used by the industry calculates ongoing charges based on the expenses levied by an investment company over the last financial year. The ongoing charge includes the costs which investors can expect to reoccur each year, so it includes an investment company’s investment management charge and the costs incurred running the company such as directors’ fees and auditors’ fees.

• Importantly, apart from a small area of overlap, the AIC says that the two cost calculations are additive. In the case of City of London, for instance, a true indication of its overall costs would be a figure close to 1.26% (0.41% + 0.85%).

• To compare investment companies and OEICs, investors should use the ongoing charge because this is the same methodology currently being used by open‑ended funds. When comparing investment companies, the traditional OCF will provide a consistent basis of comparison, but KID-derived figure may not, because the KID rules allow for different interpretations and can lead to different outcomes.

• The KID cost figure is best thought of as a set of costs, projected into the future, based on certain assumptions regarding investment company performance. The traditional OCF is best thought of as a set of (mostly different) actual costs incurred in the most recent financial year.

What to make of it all?

The AIC and the investment company managers that it represents are in no doubt: KIDs are flawed, and must go.

“The AIC has argued strongly for KIDs to be suspended as their flawed methodology for calculating risk and potential returns could be dangerously misleading to investors,” its chief executive Ian Sayers told me. “We have repeatedly called on the FCA to protect consumers by warning them not to rely on KIDs when making investment decisions.”

“The implementation of KIDs for UCITS funds has recently been delayed by two years to January 2022. We believe the KIDs rules should be suspended because they are systematically flawed due to their reliance on past performance as a basis for future projections. We need time so the rules can be fixed once and for all: if KIDs are not good enough for open‑ended investors, then they are not good enough for purchasers of investment companies.”

My take? Not for the first time, we see – doubtless well-meaning – financial regulators muddy the waters.

Whatever fix eventually emerges the likely impact will be deleterious.

With an investment industry repeatedly and loudly calling for KIDs to be fixed — and to be dumped until they are fixed — the result is that the KID brand is in danger of being irreversibly tarnished.

That’s not good for investment trust investors. It’s not good for the investment trust industry, either.

Read all of The Greybeard’s previous posts on deaccumulation and retirement.

1. The AIC talks about investment companies, and I have retained that usage here. For most purposes, and most investors, investment trusts and investment companies can be thought of as being the same thing. All investment trusts are investment companies; not all investment companies are investment trusts. And although this isn’t the only difference between the two, investment trusts are UK-domiciled, while investment companies need not be UK domiciled.

from Monevator https://monevator.com/who-are-you-kid-ing-understanding-the-ongoing-charge-figure-of-an-investment-trust/

Weekend reading: Twilight of the blogs

What caught my eye this week.

Investing blogs – especially in the UK – are updating much less frequently than they used to.

Perhaps as ever more of us go passive, there’s less to write about?

Index fund-focused blogs like us are typically trying to find new ways to say the same thing (as Jack Bogle quipped about himself). It’s just not as exciting as blogging about Facebook shares crashing or small cap story stocks. Readers invariably find Monevator, read a lot and comment a little, and then vanish. Perhaps that happens with most websites. But a strategy that says “set your portfolio and forget about it” isn’t the best way to keep ’em coming back for more.

Sometimes I think about going full-time with Monevator (oh the luxury) and about what else I’d like to write here. (Apart from all the follow-up articles I’ve promised you over the years I mean!)

I’d like an excuse to dig deeper into unlisted/angel investing, for example, but the tumbleweed festooning my article this week suggests this isn’t the right venue.

Similarly I’m interested in all the new fintechs coming to market. I went to a pitch event last night featuring seven, all aiming to make the world a better place. I even chatted to the founders of Monevator reader favourite, Money Dashboard!

This area is appealing to me because it’s not well-covered elsewhere. But perhaps it’s not covered much because few other people are curious about it.

Going back to blogs, I do think the years of seeing their traffic drifting to Facebook and Twitter has eventually encouraged a lot of bloggers to throw in the towel or jump ship. I see people who used to write copiously on blogs and forums now throwing off a couple of tweets about the same thing. It has its place, but nobody is learning about investing on Twitter.

Similarly I was happy to support a financial freedom Facebook group a few years ago that has since ballooned with lots of interesting comments most days. It’s very easy to post a question or a link and to press a like button. Far harder to blog every week for year after year.

Finally, several interesting bloggers – especially in the US – have moved most of their focus to podcasts. I followed a few for a while, but podcasts are time-consuming fare to get through. For me, nothing beats the written word.

The golden age of investment blogging seems to be over. If that’s reflected in the quantity or quality of links to blogs in our Weekend Reading, now you know why.

We’re still standing though. Have a great weekend!

Am I overlooking some great UK investing blogs that are consistently posting quality content? If so let me know in the comments below. (Not so much people posting about their coupon clipping or matched betting, or personal stuff that doesn’t lend itself to sharing in a single article. Nothing wrong with any of that, but it’s not our thing here.)

From Monevator

Are ordinary investors missing out on venture capital returns? – Monevator

From the archive-ator: Investing for beginners (All about assets) – Monevator

News

Note: Some links are Google search results – in PC/desktop view you can click to read the piece without being a paid subscriber. Try privacy/incognito mode to avoid cookies. Consider subscribing if you read them a lot!¹

UK rents fall for the first time in a decade – Guardian

How Britain’s £239bn buy-to-let bubble burst – ThisIsMoney

Santander to close 140 bank branches – Guardian

Times are tough for wannabe hedge fund titans – Bloomberg

Products and services

10-year fixed rate mortgages have never look cheaper – Guardian

Will fitting a car tracker device reduce your insurance costs? – ThisIsMoney

Ratesetter will give you a free £100 [and me a cash bonus] if you invest £1,000 for a year – Ratesetter

Estate agents give their seven top tips for selling your property – ThisIsMoney

Fancy homes in warehouse conversions… [Gallery] – Guardian

…and the 20 cheapest homes in Britain – ThisIsMoney

Comment and opinion

Fickle fortune – Of Dollars and Data

“I make a six-figure salary but I’m still always broke” – Whimn

Double your money – The Reformed Broker

The long-term in international [That is non-US] stocks – A Wealth of Common Sense

The reason active funds attractive more media attention than passive – TEBI

The trouble with market-cap weighting funds – Morningstar

The basics of technical analysis [Funny] – xkcd

A deep dive into Swensen’s Yale Portfolio [US but relevant] – Value Stock Geek

Rick Ferri interviews Vanguard’s ex-CIO [Podcast] – Bogleheads on Investing

A deep dive into global small cap investment trusts – IT Investor

Bill Miller in the wilderness, and loving it – Institutional Investor

Brexit

Airbus slams ‘disgraceful’ Brexit chaos, calls Brexiteers ‘mad’ and threatens to leave Britain with the loss of 14,000 jobs if there is no deal – ThisIsMoney

Kindle book bargains

Start Now, Get Perfect Later by Rob Moore – £0.99 on Kindle

Unlimited Memory by Kevin Horsley – £0.99 on Kindle

Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull – £1.99 on Kindle

Turning the Tide on Plastic by Lucy Siegle – £0.99 on Kindle

Off our beat

Facebook, Google, and a dark age of surveillance capitalism [Search result] – FT

With lifelong struggles, effort isn’t what’s missing – Raptitude

And finally…

“As I have earlier noted, the most important things in life and in business can’t be measured.”
– John C. Bogle, Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life

Like these links? Subscribe to get them every Friday!

1. Note some articles can only be accessed through the search results if you’re using PC/desktop view (from mobile/tablet view they bring up the firewall/subscription page). To circumvent, switch your mobile browser to use the desktop view. On Chrome for Android: press the menu button followed by “Request Desktop Site”.

from Monevator https://monevator.com/weekend-reading-twilight-of-the-blogs/

Where’s my unicorn: Are ordinary investors missing out on venture capital returns?

Note: While as ever this article is not personal investment advice, know that do I own a few shares in Seedrs. Also if you follow any links below to Seedrs and try their platform, I may receive a small marketing fee.

Over the past 15 years, advances in technology – smartphones, Cloud-based storage and processing, and low-cost software development – have enabled entrepreneurs to scale up massive companies with little outside capital.

In 2014 Facebook paid almost $20 billion for WhatsApp, a messaging service only five-years old.

WhatsApp had just 55 employees at that time, and most of the momentum that took it to 400 million users came from seed capital¹, and some later venture capital (VC) funding.

That was enough to grow it to a valuation of c. $20 billion!

WhatsApp is not unique. The current implied valuations of unlisted start-ups like Uber and AirBnB make the billions Facebook paid for WhatsApp seem stingy. These disruptive giants – again just a few years old – have made their early seed investors rich and delivered stellar returns for VC firms.

Previously it would have taken a couple of decades for a new industry to grow into the $20-billion deal bracket.

Along the way, at least some of the leading companies would probably have floated on the stock market.

But these new behemoths achieved scale without us ordinary stock market investors getting a look in.

It’s not unprecedented, but it is a conundrum.

When capitalists don’t need capital

Of course the initial money for startups has always come from friends, family, and angels (wealthy individuals).

Later and more substantial financing comes from VC funds (especially in the US tech sector) and strategic partners such as big firms in adjacent sectors.

But most founders with global ambitions previously had to tap the public stock markets for the booster fuel needed to achieve multinational escape velocity.

A wider range of funds – and even ordinary punters – could then buy into these still relatively small firms when they floated on the stock market, via an IPO.

And after that, anyone could buy their shares.

In today’s low-capital startup world, however – where it takes takes barely a Love Island villa’s worth of talent to create companies worth billions – we might wonder whether we’re missing out on growth that has previously made up part of the reassuring historical returns seen from owning equities.

Most startups amount to nothing, but the best become the giants of tomorrow. They grow from small winners into middle-sized companies, and some into stock market titans.

True, Uber and AirBnB will probably float some day. (If only so their employees can easily offload the shares they’ve earned.)

But given the vast scale they’ve already achieved as private companies, how much growth will be left for ordinary folk when they do?

I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s worth asking – especially given how important the tech sector has been in driving global market returns.

Imagine if the next wave of Amazons, Googles, Microsofts, Apples, and Netflixes all came to the market years later – and far bigger – than they did?

Trillions in valuation growth might never be seen by stock market investors.

The best VC funds don’t want our money, either

If you think this is a problem – I’m undecided, but wary – then the obvious answer is to invest in private (i.e. unlisted) companies for yourself.

This has long been possible, but it’s not a straightforwardly good decision.

Studies paint a mixed picture about the returns from venture capital as an asset class, and it’s hard to get clear data.

Industry promotional material – such as this overview from Barclays – tends to be short on return information.

The picture is complicated by how venture capital goes through feast and famine, wildly influencing the performance of funds of different vintages that raised money at different times.

For instance the FT reported in 2017 that a representative subset of European VC funds that took money at the height of the dotcom boom in 2000 on average paid back just 39% of the money put into them!

Some did much better. But this only raises the perennial question of knowing which funds to put money into.

And while the UK and European VC sector is becoming more established, the biggest and best funds are still based on the West Coast of the US.

These US funds get the pick of company founders and ideas. In the hit-driven game of venture capital, that’s crucial.

US funds would also argue they’re best-placed to help the startups they invest in via their own long-established networks – by introducing them to managerial talent, other investors, potential acquisitions and so on – and so creating a virtuous circle.

You might decide the solution is to invest in these US funds, but the elite ones are usually closed to all but the richest investors and institutions – and some even to them.

Yet the return from these top outfits will skew higher any return figures you see from the VC asset class – even though oiks like us can’t buy into them!

Ways to invest in venture capital

For these reasons and others (notably a lack of liquidity and high fees) most of the writers we rate – Hale, Kroijer, Swensen, and the lazy portfolio creators – do not see a place for VC in everyday investor portfolios.

But what if you disagree?

There are ways to put money to work in private companies if you’re keen. You don’t even have to move to San Fransisco and fill your wardrobe with chinos.

However all come with challenges – and you’ll need to do a lot of research.

Here’s a summary of the main routes you could explore.

Invest via venture capital funds

The venture capital firms are out there – there’s even a growing seed investing scene in London – but whether you can judge the best funds in advance – or as I say put money into them – is extremely debatable. VC investing is brutal, at least for the investors. (The managers enjoy some fees either way.) If you’re a high net wealth type, you’ll find private banks may include VC (or at least private equity) funds in their managed portfolios. Such a relationship might get you access into better funds that would otherwise be unavailable – but you’ll need to don your shark-proof armour!

Investment trusts

There are a bunch of investment trusts that operate in the unlisted space. The majority are private equity rather than VC-focussed. This means your money will be funding things like management buy-outs, expansion at more established companies (including debt raises), and perhaps buying into a portfolio of companies that your trust owns outright. You’ll need to dig deeply to look for trusts with a growth perspective, if that’s your bag. You could even look at something like Neil Woodford’s Patient Capital Trust, or other idiosyncratic trusts that have a relatively high allocation in unlisted firms. Expect a rocky ride – with market conditions and the business cycle playing a big role – and understand that failures happen early in VC investing, so it can look pretty dark before any dawn.

Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs)

Going by the label on the tin, you’d think your hunt would stop here. VCTs come with tax breaks (albeit watered down in recent years) and many do put significant sums into start-up firms. However as a class they are definitely not all focused on high-growth minnows.² VCTs mostly aim to return money to shareholders via relatively high (and tax-free) dividends rather than in multi-bagging your initial investment. Their high fees make are also a big problem, as I’ve discussed before. I’ve wealthy chums who’ve maxed out their SIPPs and ISAs who love VCTs for the tax-free dividends, but for most of us these probably aren’t the venture capital vehicles we’re looking for.

Angel investing

It’s hard to get closer to the coal face of backing unlisted companies than to do a bank transfer to the founder of a start-up in exchange for a chunk of their shares. Perhaps you’ll even get a say in how the business develops. Results from angel investing will vary extravagantly, and cause your typical Monte Carlo simulator to reconsider its life choices before having a melt down. Angel investors run the gamut from the founders of hit companies like Skype to big fish in small provincial ponds who fancy co-owning a restaurant. Clearly, if you’re looking for the next globe-conquering Tinder or WhatsApp, don’t give money to your mate who wants to open a craft beer shop. The best book I’ve read on hunting for tech companies that might return 100x your money is Angel by Jason Calacanis.

Equity crowd funding

Not many of us can write the chunky cheques required to be an angel investor without jeapordising our future wealth. If you’ve got £5m to your name then perhaps it’s fine to stick £50,000 into several exciting moonshots to hang around with clever 20-something hipster coders. If you’ve only £50,000 in your ISAs and SIPPS, not so much.

Over the past few years, however, platforms such as Seedrs, Crowdcube, and Syndicate Room have addressed this issue by pooling often very small amounts of money from thousands of individual investors to put money into startups as a bloc.

It works, but there are issues.

In theory these platforms are democratizing venture capital and I applaud that on principle. (I even invested a little in Seedrs).

But in my experience the quality of both the companies listed on these platforms and the investors putting money into them is extraordinarily variable, to put it mildly. This is hugely risky investing, and as the space is so new there’s not return figures available that take into account all the future failures – or at least not figures I find thoroughly convincing.

For the record, Seedrs for instance has claimed a 12% internal rate of return across all-fundraisings on its platform – jumping to over 26% if potential tax breaks are taken into account.

I do judge Seedrs puts a superior cut of companies onto its platform, for what my observations are worth.

But the truth is we’ve not got a long-term to look at with these platforms yet, and barely a medium-term.

Worse, most individuals will likely discover they have a negative edge in assessing small startups. Crowd funding raises are invariably supported by scanty financial details and in a handful of cases what have seemed to me borderline fraudulent business plans. People still back them.

‘Adverse selection’ also looms large. Why are the founders coming to the great unwashed if they could get money from traditional VC funders? Perhaps because they’ve been turned down elsewhere?

On a brighter note you can often meet the founders in person (at least in London) which I believe is far more important with this kind of investing.

I also think there are companies for whom crowdfunding actually makes more sense than traditional fund raising, at least early on. I’m thinking of consumer-facing companies that may benefit from an army of shareholder-promoters.

There are also compelling tax breaks for investors putting money into firms that qualify for EIS and SEIS relief. Most of the tiny startups you’ll come across via fund raising do qualify.

Just remember that however good you are, many or maybe even most of these companies will eventually fail or near enough fail and you’ll lose the money you put into them. Much of that money can be offset by the tax reliefs, but not all of it.

The following graph is typical of the distributions of winners to losers you’ll see quoted:

(It’s based on US returns from professional VC investors, so if anything it is over-stating the chances of amateur angels striking it big.)

The aim of the game is to be in one or two of the few companies that may eventually break out of the crowdfunding morass to achieve ginormous scale. If you manage this it could make up for all your losers and then some.

Financial firms Monzo and Revolut and the brewer BrewDog have all delivered handsomely for early crowd funding investors. There will be others, but they’ll shine beyond a meteor storm of burnouts and crashes. (One irreverent blog specialises in tallying the frequent failures).

Investing in lots of companies rather than betting on half a dozen is probably the best strategy for trying to get a sliver of a future giant.

But I wouldn’t invest so much that it will make a big difference if you never strike gold. This is lottery ticket investing at its riskiest.

Innovation in venture capital investing

For all the downsides, I have put about 3.5% of my net worth into unlisted companies via crowdfunding platforms.

However I have several diverse reasons to get involved, beyond any returns. (Improving my investing chops, for example.)

I’d urge caution in allocating anything more than play money-sized allocations for even most active investors, let alone passive players.

Indeed there seems to be gap in enabling everyday investors to get exposure to venture capital – and to enjoying those generous tax reliefs – without digging through the business plans of hundreds of mostly doomed start-ups.

The Seedrs platform has recently made some interesting moves in this direction, though I do think its solutions raise new issues even as they address others.

Will they offer a way for passive investors to easily get exposure to start-up companies?

More on that next week – subscribe to ensure you see it!

1. Seed capital is the first money that goes into starting a new business.
2. In the past some VCTs even actively avoided VC-type investments as much as was possible within the rules, in order to offer limited life capital preservation vehicles that milked the tax breaks, though this has now been curbed.

from Monevator https://monevator.com/venture-capital-investing/

Weekend reading: The house that Jack built

What caught my eye this week.

Hard to believe now, but when Monevator was born in the summer of 2007, passive investing with tracker funds was still a minority pursuit in Britain.

Few investors did it. Newspapers and magazines rarely wrote about it, except in a “oh if you can’t be bothered you could buy an index fund and just accept the market return (you loser)” sort of way.

The financial crisis didn’t help – it’s hard to sell index tracking when the index has just fallen 50%! All the talk was of clever fund managers who would pick through the rubble, absolute return funds and structured products touting upside without downside, and hedge funds that hadn’t yet posted a decade of lagging a cheap 60/40 ETF portfolio.

The US was ahead of us, though. And that’s because North America was where Vanguard founder John ‘Jack’ Bogle had conceived of and launched the first index fund back in the mid-1970s.

Long time horizons

The Accumulator joined Monevator after a year or two. He told me Monevator was the only site he’d found that regularly translated US passive investing ideas for an everyday UK audience.

My co-blogger turbo-charged our efforts to bring Bogle’s key insights to wider attention here.

In the meantime global stock markets began rising. Passive investing took off in Britain, too, as more people started to get it. Eventually, index funds went mainstream.

We were in the wilderness for maybe two or three years. John Bogle was in the wilderness for two or three decades.

The $1 trillion man

Bogle was questioning the value of traditional investment approaches in the early 1950s. He finally launched the first index fund in the 1976 – labelled by competitors as ‘Bogle’s Folly’.

In other words it has taken more than 40 years for Bogle’s principles to give us the highly-efficient investing that most Monevator readers take for granted today.

Talk about long-term investing!

John Bogle died this week. He was 89. You’ll find coverage of his achievements in the links below. The impression he made is as clear as his legacy.

It wasn’t a given that the inventor and populariser of the low-cost index fund would necessarily be such a humble, inspiring, and tenacious individual. Tracker funds are essentially run by computers. Their progress would probably have been assured eventually, solely on account of the remorseless reality of their mathematical cost-advantage.

But happily, on top of that, index funds were championed by perhaps the greatest investor of all time – at least in terms of money he’s saved the world’s savers.

It’s been estimated Bogle’s innovations will have left investors with an extra $1 trillion in their accounts by 2023.

Good luck getting that sort of edge out of the latest Top Funds To Buy Now list.

Think different

If our website has patron saints, I’d say they are Jack Bogle and Warren Buffett. The two men are more similar than you might suppose.

Warren Buffett – probably the greatest active investing individual the world has ever seen – urges us to use index funds. On his death his wife’s money will be in a tracker fund run by Vanguard. Buffett recently won a 10-year bet pitching cheap active funds against handpicked hedge funds. Convinced of the index fund’s primacy, this week he said Bogle had done more for the individual investor than anyone else he’s known.

Quite the contradiction then, but what of Bogle? He’s also not as easily dumbed down as some of his adherents seem to think. Bogle took the career path that led Vanguard to $5 trillion under management almost on a whim. He was not against active investing per se – more high costs and poor results. He had money invested in his son’s active fund. Bogle was a market timer, and he was happy to say when he thought stocks looked expensive. He also invested all his money invested in the US market – an anathema to orthodox thinking today.

As we inevitably march towards a far future where the vast majority of people run their money with the market in cheap index funds – following prices set by a diminishing handful of thrill-seeking stock picking winners and losers – it seems fitting to me that the man who started it all also contained contradictions.

Thank you Jack

In as much as they’d heard of him, for most people Bogle was a man who synthesized the latest academic thinking and his own insights to dream up the low-cost funds that will leave them richer in retirement. Cheers Jack!

But really he was a philosopher king for the ages.

And as the Bogleheads say: “While some mutual fund founders chose to make billions, he chose to make a difference.”

Further reading:

• “You cannot measure the quality of a man by the size of his bank account, but in John Bogle’s case, you can measure it by the size of your bank account.” – Rick Ferri, Forbes

• John Bogle, who founded Vanguard and revolutionized retirement savings, dies at 89 – The Inquirer

• “My ideas are very simple,” Bogle once said. “In investing, you get what you don’t pay for.” – New York Times

• Praise for John Bogle compounds, like his returns – Bloomberg

• Jeremy Grantham: “What he meant to most people in the investment business was that he was a royal pain in the bottom… He was more concerned about the long-term benefits for society.” – Bloomberg

• CFA has made all Bogle’s papers free to read – CFA

• “The only people who come across his message and then subsequently disagree with it are those whose careers depend upon their not believing.” – Josh Brown

• “Without a doubt, John C. Bogle is the greatest man I’ve had the privilege of knowing.” – Jonthan Clements, The Humble Dollar

From Monevator

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) explained – Monevator

From the archive-ator: The simplest, most effective investing decision you will ever make [First making the case for tracker funds back in 2008!] – Monevator

News

Note: Some links are Google search results – in PC/desktop view you can click to read the piece without being a paid subscriber. Try privacy/incognito mode to avoid cookies. Consider subscribing if you read them a lot!¹

Record year for ETFs, as passive funds take a beating – Money Marketing

Lenders see sharp slowdown in demand for credit cards and mortgages – Morningstar

Pessimism about UK house prices worst in two decades: RICS – Bloomberg

Has the Brexit vote saved London tenants £1,800 pa in rent? – Guardian

Lords take aim at Statistics Authority’s failure to fix UK prices index [Search result] – FT

Nearly 400,000 new dollar millionaires created [globally] in 2018 – WealthX

(Click to enlarge)

Is UK property headed for a post-Brexit meltdown? [Search result] – FT

Products and services

Boost for savers as top one-year cash interest rates now match inflation – ThisIsMoney

HSBC cuts mortgage rates across its entire range, as price war rumbles on – ThisIsMoney

Ratesetter will give you a free £100 [and me a cash bonus] if you invest £1,000 for a year – Ratesetter

Freelance Fintech: Can apps replace accountants? [Search result] – FT

Italian town puts dozens of homes on market for as little as €1 – Guardian

Comment and opinion

Invest like a JOMO sapien – Anthony Isola

Subtraction mode – Humble Dollar

Brexit and the risks of home bias – MSCI

When it’s time to do something – Morgan Housel

Careers and the hedonic treadmill – Fervent Finance

Are market moves happening faster? [Spoiler: No] – A Wealth of Common Sense

Why it’s the right time to consider a tracker mortgage – 3652 Days

Does the ‘bucket approach’ destroy wealth…? – Advisor Perspectives

…perhaps in theory, but the optimal portfolio is not the same as the best one – CFA

First post sent from the other side of early retirement – Retirement Investing Today

Unitizing a portfolio can bring home disappointing truths – Simple Living in Somerset

10 years ago, Warren Buffett bought a railroad – Buffett, Berkshire and Beyond

Why one value investor sold GlaxoSmithKline – UK Value Investor

Fund managers do well when they buy, not when they sell – Morningstar & Bloomberg

Equity investing is riskier than you think [Nerdy, research] – Alpha Architect

Brexit

It was never about Europe. Brexit is Britain’s reckoning with itself – Guardian

UK fails to close trade deals ahead of Brexit deadline [Search result] – FT

Richard Stone: Why I believe Brexit will not happen now – CityWire

“I don’t trust the Government”: Meet the Brexit stockpilers – Guardian

Stop worrying about Brexit — it’s time to invest in UK assets [Search result] – FT

A neat summary of how we got to this impasse – via Twitter

A reminder very few Britons fretted about the EU before they were asked to – Economist

Kindle book bargains

Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull – £1.99 on Kindle

Start Now, Get Perfect Later by Rob Moore – £0.99 on Kindle

Turning the Tide on Plastic by Lucy Siegle – £0.99 on Kindle

Off our beat

The most powerful person in Silicon Valley – Fast Company

Why one man lives homeless in the Alaskan wilderness – Guardian

Scientists unveil a ‘planetary’ diet that’s good for the world and our health – BBC

Tim Harford: Behavioural economics helped me kick phone addiction [Search result] – FT

The indie book blog is dead, the golden era of blogging is long past – Vulture (although…)

Strong and weak technologies – cdixon blog

Cool thread on the human body parts evolution left behind – via Twitter

And finally…

“The grim irony of investing, then, is that we investors as a group not only don’t get what we pay for, we get precisely what we don’t pay for. So if we pay for nothing, we get everything.”
– John C. Bogle, The Little Book of Common Sense Investing

Like these links? Subscribe to get them every Friday!

1. Note some articles can only be accessed through the search results if you’re using PC/desktop view (from mobile/tablet view they bring up the firewall/subscription page). To circumvent, switch your mobile browser to use the desktop view. On Chrome for Android: press the menu button followed by “Request Desktop Site”.

from Monevator https://monevator.com/weekend-reading-the-house-that-jack-built/

Legal Services After Hour Answering Solutions – How to Choose a Lawyer [US]

Choosing the right financial broker

When you’re first getting into trading, few decisions are more important than your choice of broker. It can make all the difference to your success or failure as a trader. The tricky thing is, there’s no one size fits all list of best brokers out there. You need to find the one that’s right for you, and that means being clear about your aims from the start. It also means knowing what to look out for.

Safety first

Anywhere that you find inexperienced shoppers, you’ll find people selling dodgy products, and the world of trading is no different. Don’t let unscrupulous brokers swindle you. Be wary of cold callers and deals that sound too good to be true. Check that your broker is properly registered and look them up online rather than just following their link to a website, because sometimes those websites are fake. Look for a well-known broker with a good reputation.

Overall costs

New traders are often on the lookout for the cheapest deals but that’s not as beneficial as it might sound. The advantage gained from low trading fees might be lost due to high costs for maintaining your account or withdrawing money. Be especially wary of hidden fees. Check independent sources if you can’t find clear information on this – to read an Avatrade review click here and you will see how much easier it is to find the information that matters.

Available assets

Different brokers offer assets of different types, some focusing on just one type – such as the stock market or forex – and others offering multiple types. Within each type, some offer much broader selections than others, but the broadest are not necessarily the best. What suits you best will depend on your trading style. As long as you’re careful about fees there’s nothing to stop you having more than one account with different brokers.

Platforms and facilities

Some popular trading platforms are compatible with multiple broker services, but other brokers offer – or use exclusively – their own bespoke platforms. Each of these is supposed to be intuitive but to find out what actually works that way for you, it’s best to get a demo account and spend some hands-on time exploring. It’s really important to be able to find what you want quickly so that you are not delayed when trying to clinch important trades.

Education and support

When you’re new to trading there’s a lot to learn, and the most successful traders never stop looking for learning opportunities. Many brokers provide training videos, advice and even livestreamed seminars to help their clients. Some also have very good helplines where you can get support to tackle any problems. It’s also worth looking for a broker with a forum where there’s a good community atmosphere and where traders help each other.

With these things in mind, it’s much easier to find the right broker for your needs. You can always change your mind later on, but many traders find that once they’ve found a broker they’re comfortable with, they settle into a long and fruitful relationship.

from Finance Girl http://www.financegirl.co.uk/choosing-the-right-financial-broker%ef%bb%bf/

How To Get The Best Value When it Comes To Household Bills

If you’ve been with the same utility provider for a while, you may have noticed the price of your bills slowly creep up over the years. Many consumers are in in the same boat, first lured in with the promise of unbeatable deals but then switched over on a standard tariff that ends up costing you more. Consumers do have a lot of power in this satiation and the most important thing is to not sit idly by, letting providers make decisions on your behalf. Ready to start saving? Read below to find out all the things you can do to get the best value when it comes to your household bills.

We should first make a distinction between best value and cheapest and the two don’t often go hand in hand. Before considering the switch, think about your household’s need and try to match it with a suitable contract. For example, your family might be online a lot, which requires a lot of bandwidth, but the cheapest contract will provide you with slower internet speeds – that would be a bad value switch for your household! If you’re not sure what internet speed you would benefit from most, then give this simple video from Hoppy a go to ensure you’re only paying for what you need.

Call Directly

So many of us are used to sorting our bills on the internet that we’re overlooking the great deals that can be had when you negotiate with someone over the phone. Don’t be afraid to call up your supplier and let them know that you’re thinking of leaving – then wait for an offer from them. Suppliers want to retain as many customers as possible and will offer you a series of deals or perks to entice you to stay. Do some research beforehand to see what kind of offers are available with competitor providers and mention those when you’re speaking to someone as you may be offered a price-match deal.

Check Your Council Tax

Did you know that up to 40,000 homes in Britain are in the wrong council tax band? Considering that council tax is one of the highest bills that everyone pays monthly, it’s definitely worth checking whether you’re in the right bracket. Not only can you save hundreds of pounds, but you could also be eligible for a rebate. Try writing an email to your council or giving them a call to double check. Be aware that a review of your property’s council tax band could also lead to the bill increasing in the future if it’s found that the property has been in the cheaper band than it was supposed to.

Switch Tariffs Often

When it comes to gas and electricity, shopping around and switching tariffs often should be a part of every consumer’s thinking. Remember, companies want to reel you in with a great offer so new customer offers are almost always going to be cheaper than staying with a supplier for a long time; loyalty really doesn’t pay in this instance. Use price comparison sites to see what’s on offer and where the best deals can be found. Be sure to make a note of any exit fees before you switch to ensure you’re not paying those if you decide to switch again.

Getting the best value household bills takes a little time and research but it’s well worth it when there’s so much that you can potentially save. Check the utility market often, since new deals pop up all the time, and start making those savings now!

from Finance Girl http://www.financegirl.co.uk/how-to-get-the-best-value-when-it-comes-to-household-bills/

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF)

Back in the wild old days there were few protections for pension scheme members.

Long burnt into the public memory was the Maxwell pension scandal, for example, which saw around £400m of pension savers’ money plundered by a cash-starved newspaper mogul.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, greater consideration was given to protecting workers’ pensions. However it wasn’t until the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) arrived in 2005 that savers got bona fide protection.

Enter the PPF

The PPF – known colloquially as the ‘pensions lifeboat’ – was set up under the Pensions Act 2004 to protect people’s Defined Benefit (DB) pensions from being pilfered away.

The PPF has been a great success in preventing hundreds of thousands of people from losing their pensions when their companies went bust. Many big-name pension schemes have fallen into PPF over the years, including Carillion and Toys ‘R’ Us.

As of 2018, the PPF has picked up over 200,000 members and £30bn in assets under management.

How is the PPF funded?

Contrary to some righteous tabloid fury, the PPF is not funded by taxpayers. It is funded through a levy payable by almost all open DB schemes, and by investment returns on the assets it accepts.

That levy varies depending on how large and how risky a given pension scheme is. The largest, riskiest schemes pay the highest levy.

The levy is calculated in part every year, based on a valuation every three years (called the triennial ‘section 179 valuation’).¹

Each year, the PPF issues a determination notice explaining how it will calculate the upcoming year’s levy. You need a brain the size of two watermelons to understand all the formulas.²

How do schemes fall into the PPF?

The starting point for entering the PPF is usually when the sponsoring employer (the company funding the scheme) thinks it’s on the verge of insolvency, or is insolvent.

It writes a polite letter to the PPF saying as much. How very British.

But insolvency alone doesn’t determine whether the scheme will go into the PPF.

First, the PPF starts an Assessment Period. This can take up to 18 months. During this time there are restrictions on the scheme (for example, no transfers out). In the background lots of smart finance people and lawyers look at how the pension scheme was funded (or not, as the case may be).

This Assessment Period culminates in what’s called a section 143 valuation.³ This valuation determines whether the scheme is ‘underfunded’ at the ‘PPF level’ or not.

A scheme will only transfer into the PPF if it does not have enough assets and money to pay for the same level of benefits that the PPF can provide (the aforementioned PPF level). It is deemed in this case to be ‘underfunded’.

If the scheme has enough assets to provide a benefit greater than the PPF compensation then instead the scheme must wind-up. It will normally seek a buyout from an insurer, which will provide the members a better deal than if the scheme fell into the PPF (sometimes called PPF+). The buyout process effectively sees the pension’s trustees hand the assets of the scheme over to the insurer. In exchange the insurer agrees to take on the liability of paying the scheme members their pensions.

Otherwise, where the scheme is underfunded, it falls into the PPF. The assets and liabilities of the scheme are again handed over by the pension trustees. This time the PPF takes control of the pension scheme and it pays out the scheme members’ pensions.

What happens to my pension if it goes into the PPF?

The PPF will pay you your pension if your scheme falls into its clutches.

The amount you get will probably be lower than if your scheme had not gone into the PPF.

The 90% level

There are two compensation levels: 100% and 90%.

If you have reached Normal Retirement Age (NRA) prior to the employer going insolvent then you get 100% of your benefits on the insolvency date. Your NRA depends on the rules of your pension (called the ‘scheme rules’). Usually the NRA is around 60-65.⁴

If you are younger than NRA, your pension payments are restricted to 90% of what you would have received.

The cap

A second way your pension can be reduced in the PPF regime is by the Compensation Cap.

If you are a 90% level member, your benefits are subject to a cap. The cap varies depending on your age. The PPF publishes the caps on its website, updating them yearly. For 2018, the cap is £39,006.18 per annum for a 65 year old.⁵

Increases may be restricted, too

A further reason your overall pension may be less than you expected is that the pension increases granted by the PPF are restricted. Let’s look at how this works.

With a DB pension, your benefit is built up – or in fancy pension language, accrued – each year you work. Depending on when you built up that pension, your pension is treated differently by law.

Someone who worked (and built up their pension) between 1985 and 1997 has their pension treated differently to someone who worked between 1997 and 2005. Your pension is split into blocks depending on when it was built up, and what law applies to it.

One of the legal provisions that differs between pension blocks is the rate of increase on your pension when it is paid.

When you take your pension (whenever that is) you should normally receive annual increases. These are designed to help your pension keep pace with inflation.

The minimum rate of these increases (if any) is set by law. The different rates for your pension blocks are illustrated below:

(Click to enlarge)

If your scheme goes into the PPF, the PPF pays your pension. Every year, while your pension is being paid, the part of your pension in the blue and red boxes in the diagram is increased by however much CPI has increased over the previous year (max 2.5%).⁶ Any other part of your pension isn’t increased (the green box).

For schemes that are not in the PPF, the increases you get each year depend on the scheme rules, but the minimum increases are shown in the diagram above. The scheme can be more generous.

You should be told what blocks your pension is split into and the rate of increases for each block in your benefit statements. If you don’t know ask your pension administrator.

As a result of all this, if your pension scheme goes into the PPF, it is entirely possible for your annual increase rate to go from 5% down to zero – for example, if you accrued all your pension before 1997.

About some fella named Hampshire

Due to the effects of compounding, this reduction in increases can significantly reduce the value of your pension pot. The reductions in benefits can also be substantial for high earners who have built up a very large pension and thus get hit by the cap.

One gentleman was particularly upset that when his scheme fell into the PPF. Given he was looking at a two-thirds decrease in his payment, I’m not surprised! This chap took the PPF to court. In late 2018, the ECJ ruled that it was unlawful to have to have a reduction greater than 50% (Hampshire v PPF).

The result is that it appears there will now be a minimum guarantee of a 50% compensation level.

However it’s early days, and the full impact of the case may take some time to be clarified.

What can I do if my employer looks like it’s going bust?

Remember first that even if your employer goes bust, this might not mean your pension goes into the PPF. As we discussed above, the scheme may be sufficiently funded that the scheme must arrange a buyout instead. In that case, your payments will be better than you’d get in the PPF.

Unless you’ve got some magical pixie powers, you can’t stop your scheme sponsor going bust. You can though monitor the situation in advance. For example, you could sign up for notifications from Companies House and check the information produced by the pension scheme.

That said you are very unlikely to be able to do much pre-empting. The decisions around pension schemes are typically commercially sensitive and highly confidential.

You could potentially consider transferring out. However that’s a story for another time, and transfers out of a DB scheme should not be taken lightly.

Note you should be informed if there is an inkling that the scheme may fall into the PPF – because you must be told, by law.

Closing up

Hopefully this short article has helped to provide a little bit of information around the Pension Protection Fund.

The PPF has provided much needed security for pension scheme members, including many who had saved all their working lives into their company schemes, only for their employer to teeter into insolvency.

For my money the PPF has been a great success!

• Have a look at a very helpful PPF welcome booklet on the PPF website.

Read all The Detail Man’s posts on Monevator, and be sure to check out his own blog at Young FI Guy where he talks about life as a financially free twenty-something.

1. I know it’s a bit jargon-happy to refer to specific sections of the Pensions Act, but a pet peeve of mine is when different pension valuations are thrown around without context. We’ll see shortly why is important to differentiate between different valuations.
2. Also known as being an actuary – I’m not jealous, really.
3. Yes more jargon. A section 143 valuation uses a set of specific assumptions. Over time it’s become very similar to the section 179 valuation I mentioned in a previous footnote, but with a few specific differences.
4. Likewise, if you have a widows’ or inherited pension the compensation level is 100%.
5. Meaning a benefit cap of £35,106 per annum = £39,006 x 90%.
6. That is, if inflation is more than 2.5% in a given year, you only get a 2.5% increase on your pension for that year. Conversely, if inflation is negative, your pension does not decrease.

from Monevator https://monevator.com/the-pension-protection-fund-ppf/

The Countdown is On: 8 Months to Reclaim PPI

A new year encourages us to start something new. But for PPI claims, 2019 is the year that it’s all coming to an end.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) set 29th August 2019 as the cut-off date for all those wishing to make a claim. This means individuals have just eight months left to contact their bank regarding a claim. While you’re busy striving to keep up with your New Year’s resolutions, don’t let the date of the deadline pass you by.

Whether you want to make a claim yourself or use a PPI claims company, acting soon is a good idea. Thousands of individuals have made successful PPI claims, and there are still more people who are eligible for a refund from their bank.

If you had a credit card, loan or mortgage in the 1990s, there is a high chance that you could have been mis-sold a PPI policy. Take the time to find out before it’s too late.

The PPI Deadline

Officially announced in August 2017, the PPI deadline aims to encourage those who have not yet claimed to do so. The PPI saga has been ongoing for many years. To date, the banks have paid over £33 billion to consumers.

The FCA used the robotic head of Arnold Schwarzenegger to promote the deadline. Television and radio adverts used the famous actor’s recognisable face and voice to inform people of the deadline. The FCA also created a dedicated website and social media pages for individuals to seek further information and guidance.

The deadline campaign has been paid for by the major banks who mis-sold PPI policies. In addition to refunding customers, the banks have contributed £42 billion to advertising the campaign.

It’s estimated that over sixty million people were mis-sold PPI policies. Many consumers were told it was compulsory or had it added automatically. But, for those who willingly bought PPI, there might also be the chance of a refund. The Plevin rule means individuals are eligible to make a PPI claim if their policy had high levels of commission, but they were not aware of this at the time. The Plevin rule has opened the floodgates for even more people to receive a refund from their bank.

Making a PPI Claim

If you want to make a PPI claim, add it to your 2019 to-do list now. When making a claim, you will need evidence of the PPI policy and a clear explanation of how it was mis-sold to you. The banks will be busy responding to customers in the next eight months and a claim can take many weeks to be resolved.

If you aren’t sure where to begin, don’t have the time or energy to make a claim yourself, finding a reputable PPI claims company is a good idea. In 2018, an interim fee cap was introduced, meaning all companies must charge 20% or less, plus VAT. However, some PPI claims companies do charge below this threshold — and have done so before the cap was introduced.

A claims company will do all the work for you. With a few simple details, it can investigate any old PPI policies and contact the bank or lender to make a claim. It’s a great option if you don’t want to deal with the correspondence from the bank.

If your claim is unsuccessful, you can refer the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS has a huge number of claims to deal with so expect a delay.

But with just eight months to go, don’t waste any time. Find out if you’re owed a PPI refund from your bank today.

from Finance Girl http://www.financegirl.co.uk/the-countdown-is-on-8-months-to-reclaim-ppi/

Weekend reading: British passport no longer rules the waivers

What caught my eye this week.

Got your passport ready and your bag packed for the last flight out of Heathrow when Britain goes all 21 Days Later on Brexit Day?

The good news is even I don’t think that’s going to happen. We’ll be more in for months of Dad’s Army amateurism should we leave with no-deal on the 29th March. But the reviled metropolitan elites will immediately put their brains towards sorting out the mess foisted upon them, and anarchy will be avoided.¹

The bad news is Britain has slipped again in the Henley Passport Index. This ranking of how many countries a citizen can visit without a visa is now topped by Japan. Its popular citizens can visit 190 countries around the world visa-free.

Britain has dropped to sixth place – from the top spot in 2015 – though to be honest that isn’t disastrous. You can still visit 185 countries without a visa if you have a UK passport.

Despite the tilt towards nationalism in the UK and US (which has also fallen down the list) most of the world increasingly recognizes the power of hassle-free movement. In 2006 the average citizen could visit 58 countries without a visa. That has nearly doubled to 107.

Brexit surely won’t change things much – it’s unimaginable you’ll need a visa to visit the EU anytime soon – although I do expect we’ll be doling out more visas to the likes of India and China after Brexit.

We’ll need the workers, and they’ll demand visas in trade deals that we can’t refuse.

From Monevator

The Slow & Steady Passive Portfolio Update: Q4 2018 – Monevator

From the archive-ator: Beware the lure of the exotic – Monevator

News

Note: Some links are Google search results – in PC/desktop view you can click to read the piece without being a paid subscriber. Try privacy/incognito mode to avoid cookies. Consider subscribing if you read them a lot!²

Four in 10 UK first-time buyers will retire with mortgages, FCA warns – Guardian

One in five baby boomers are millionaires [Search result] – FT

UK house prices rise at fastest rate in almost two years, says Halifax – Guardian

Open banking: the quiet digital revolution one year on [Search result] – FT

[Former?] hedge fund star David Einhorn was down 34% in 2018 – CNBC

Would Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax proposal work in UK?- Guardian

Do you live in a burglary hotspot? – This Is Money

Treasury to review ‘loan charge’ proposals that retrospectively tax contractors – Accountancy Daily

Australia’s house price slide prompts worries about its economy [Search result] – FT

JP Morgan: Most markets began 2019 pricing in an imminent mild recession – FT

Products and services

Why US-style zero-fee funds won’t catch on in Europe – Institutional Investor

Hargreaves Lansdown under fire over Wealth 150 list – Guardian & Simon Lambert

Ratesetter will give you a free £100 [and me a cash bonus] if you invest £1,000 for a year – Ratesetter

Do you have any of these rare and valuable euro coins rattling around? – This Is Money

Farms and smallholdings for sale [In pictures] – Guardian

Market timing mini-special

No, you almost certainly can’t time markets – Institutional Investor

The evidence says index funds still beat active funds in down markets – Preston McSwain

The wrong debate – The Irrelevant Investor

The jury is still out on timing factor [i.e. return premium] investments – Morningstar

Lump sum investing versus drip-feeding [From the archive-ator] – Monevator

Comment and opinion

When markets are tough, don’t look – Morningstar

Professional investors are bad at selling stocks – Bloomberg

The economics of divorce – Young F.I. Guy & [Search result] FT

US equity returns since 2009 are staggering, and likely unrepeatable – ETF.com

On the demographic path to human self-extinction – Ed Yardeni

The price of greed – Of Dollars and Data

30 years of living the bull market life… – Morningstar

Related: Two pieces on future returns [US but relevant] – Morningstar & ZenInvestor

In praise of having a big cash reserve – Bone Fide Wealth (via Abnormal Returns)

Advice for the young as the market weather turns rougher – Simple Living in Somerset

Is J.D. Roth still financially independent, and does it even matter? – Get Rich Slowly

UK Value Investor reviews his performance in a tough 2018 – UK Value Investor

Brexit

Audience member on Question Time sums up where we’re at [Video] – via Twitter

Brexit is dividing Britain. So is a Brexit movie. – New York Times

Outrage at John Bercow is the sound of a constitution working [Search result] – FT

No-deal Brexit would shrink economy by 8%, claims CBI – ThisIsMoney

We’re now a country where right-wing yobs chant “nazi” on live TV  [Video] – via Twitter

It’s not perfect, but Norway plus may be Labour’s least worst option – Owen Jones

David Lammy MP urges MPs to tell the truth to misled voters [Video] – via Twitter

Kindle book bargains

Creativity, Inc. [Must read!] by Ed Catmull – £1.99 on Kindle

Barbarians at the Gate by Brian Burrough and John Helyar – £1.99 on Kindle

Start Now, Get Perfect Later by Rob Moore – £0.99 on Kindle

Turning the Tide on Plastic by Lucy Siegle – £0.99 on Kindle

Off our beat

Lonely George the tree snail dies, and a species goes extinct – National Geographic

Don’t reply to emails: The case for Inbox Infinity – The Atlantic

Blow to low carb diet as landmark study finds high fibre cuts heart disease risk – Guardian

Interview with Deep Mind’s founder and AI pioneer [PDF] – The Times via Google

Africa’s biggest conservation success was once a poacher’s paradise – Bloomberg

And finally…

“The reason so few people optimise their finances and become wealthy is because they never spend any time researching and never properly try their hand at investing. There is a very high correlation between understanding finance and being wealthy.”
– Andrew Craig, How To Own The World

Like these links? Subscribe to get them every Friday!

1. Before someone says “So what’s the problem then?”, an analogy here is that an expert surgeon can give you a quadruple heart bypass, but that’s not a mandate to chain smoke between bacon butties for 30 years.
2. Note some articles can only be accessed through the search results if you’re using PC/desktop view (from mobile/tablet view they bring up the firewall/subscription page). To circumvent, switch your mobile browser to use the desktop view. On Chrome for Android: press the menu button followed by “Request Desktop Site”.

from Monevator https://monevator.com/weekend-reading-british-passport-no-longer-rules-the-waivers/