Over the last twelve months, I’ve noticed a growing divide within the financial services industry. Some businesses interpret the FCA’s reviews as an attack on costs, making cost-cutting their primary focus. Others, however, place greater emphasis on value over cost. In this final blog, I explore the dangers of the “race to the bottom” and why prioritising value is critical to sustainable success.
Over recent weeks, I’ve explored confirmation bias and cost vs. value in investing. In this blog, I’m diving into one of the most debated topics in investment management: passive vs. active strategies.
In my recent blogs, I explored two key factors influencing how we interpret industry changes: confirmation bias and value. These themes remain at the forefront of discussions in financial planning, especially in response to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) thematic review on retirement income.
In the financial services industry, discussions around cost often dominate headlines. Phrases like “3% annual charges,” St. James’s Place critiques, or the debate between passive and active investing frequently grab attention. However, these conversations can miss a critical factor: value.
In today’s information-saturated world, confirmation bias has become more than just a cognitive quirk—it’s a potentially dangerous force that limits creativity, stifles independent thinking, and distorts our decision-making processes. Confirmation bias happens when we actively seek information that aligns with our existing beliefs while ignoring or discounting anything that challenges them. In financial planning, this bias can cloud judgment, reducing the quality of advice and strategies offered to clients.
Budget 2024: Why We Need to Step Up for Pensions and Inheritance Tax Reform
With the U.S. presidential election on the horizon, investors are wondering how it will affect financial markets.
Our perception of success has always shaped the world around us. For many, success is equated with status and, more often than not, the money we accumulate. In investing, this mindset can become dangerous, tempting us to chase what's perceived as "successful" without understanding the risks involved.
Most of us dislike paying taxes, yet we all desire the best public services. The reality is that society is evolving—people are living longer, and medical advancements continue to improve our quality of life. However, these benefits come with a price. If our expectations remain high, maintaining the same tax levels is unrealistic.
Working in a regulated environment often feels like a strategic game of chess. To "win," you must not only understand your opponent but also grasp their strategies and motivations. This analogy rings especially true when dealing with regulatory bodies like the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
Over the long term, investing in the stock market has consistently proven rewarding, but navigating market volatility is challenging. Historical data from the MSCI World Index, spanning from January 1999 to July 2024, supports this with an average return of 7.39% and volatility of 14%. However, the journey to achieving these returns is far from smooth, as recent fluctuations in the stock markets show.
Over the last few months, I have studied the FCA Thematic Review into Retirement. It has challenged my thinking about retirement and the challenges facing financial planners. So, we ask, "Retirement: what is it good for?".
