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?".

The state pension, a cornerstone of social security, was first introduced in 1909 with a retirement age 70. However, it was not until 1928 that it was made available to all, with the retirement age lowered to 65.

Like the US, the UK seems to run on a two-party state. However, this was not always the case. Up to the early 1900s, the two parties were Liberal and Conservative. Labour had its first minority Government in 1923 and its first majority Government in 1945. The number of Prime Ministers is relatively small compared to the Conservatives:

The US operates under a two-party system: the Democratic Party formed in 1828 and the Republican Party in 1854. The President can only have two terms of four years each. However, the US political system also includes the Senate and House of Representatives. A President can be from one party and the Senate and House of Representatives another!

On LinkedIn, I picked up a financial planner who quoted the table below to lambast the likes of SJP in terms of their fees. At the same time, they praised their fee structure. This has made me think about Consumer Duty and the “Fair Value” aspect.