Looking back, it’s incredible how quickly things can change. Think about the euphoria of the dot-com bubble, the crash that followed, and nearly three years of negative stock market returns. Then came the global financial crisis, reshaping economies for years.
We recently visited Berlin and experienced the Berlin Story Bunker, an eye-opening exhibition titled “How Could It Happen?”. This raw exploration of the rise and fall of Hitler offered a stark reminder of how easily minds can be manipulated. While events like these may seem unimaginable today, the experience highlighted how propaganda continues to influence opinions and shape actions.
In my last blog, I shared my lightbulb moment—an insight that shifted my perspective. Today, I want to share something deeply personal about how the challenges of the last few months have changed and shaped me.
When we buy a car, we have something tangible—something we can touch, see, and feel. For many of us, our work isn’t about producing physical objects. Instead, it’s about delivering solutions to problems—an inherently intangible offering that can be difficult to articulate.
Confirmation bias is everywhere—especially on platforms like LinkedIn. Scrolling through posts might lead you to believe that passive investing is the only approach worth considering and that all index funds are the same. However, whether you prefer index funds, active funds, or a blend of both, one truth remains: you can’t ignore the importance of thorough investment research.
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.
