Showing posts with label savings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label savings. Show all posts

Monday 26 December 2011

Redefining Risk. Realistic definition of Risk.

Redefining Risk

Risk was the chance that you might not meet your long-term investment goals. 

And the greatest enemy of reaching those goals:  inflation. 

Nothing is safe from inflation. 

It's major victims are savings accounts, T-bills, bonds, and other types of fixed-income investments.

Investors usually use Treasury bills as their benchmark for risk. These are considered risk-free because their nominal value can't go down. However, T-bills and bonds are in fact highly risky because of their susceptibility to inflation.




Realistic definition of Risk

A realistic definition of risk recognizes the potential loss of capital through inflation and taxes, and includes:

1. The probability your investment will preserve your capital over your investment time horizon.

2. The probability your investments will outperform alternative investments during the period.

Short-term stock price volatility is not risk. Avoid investment advice based on volatility.


So if volatility is not risk, what is your major risk?

The major risk is not the short-term stock price volatility that many thousands of academic articles have been written about. 

Rather it is the possibility of not reaching your long-term investment goal through the growth of your funds in real terms. 

To measure monthly or quarterly volatility and call it risk - for investors who have time horizons 5, 10, 15 or even 30 years away - is a completely inappropriate definition. (David Dreman)


Take Home Lesson

Using Dreman's definition of risk, stocks are actually the safest investment out there over the long term. 

Investors who put some or most of their money into bonds and other investments on the assumption they are lowering their risk are, in fact, deluding themselves.

"Indeed, it goes against the principle we were taught from childhood - that the safest way to save was putting our money in the bank." 

Tuesday 20 December 2011

Personal finance should be compulsory in schools, say UK MPs

Personal finance should be compulsory in schools, say MPs
Personal finance lessons should be compulsory in schools because even high-flying Maths students struggle to understand APR and compound interest, MPs say.


Personal finance should be compulsory in schools, say MPs
Personal finance lessons should be compulsory in schools Photo: ALAMY


After an eight-month inquiry, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People called on ministers to ensure school-leavers are better equipped to avoid running into money problems.
It published a report today demanding that personal finance education be made compulsory in schools.
This would mean children as young as five being taught the basics of saving.
Financial numeracy should be taught within mathematics and ''subjective aspects'' as part of Personal, Social Health and Economic (PSHE) education, the report said.
The group recommended the appointment of a co-ordinator or ''Champion'' within each school responsible for bringing personal finance education together.
Personal finance teaching is currently ad hoc, with only 45% of teachers responding to a survey by the inquiry saying they had ever taught it.
Today's report comes ahead of a Commons debate about the issue on Thursday, secured after more than 100,000 people signed a petition by money expert Martin Lewis calling for financial education to be made compulsory.
Tory MP Andrew Percy, who chaired the inquiry, said: ''Credit cards, mortgages, hire purchase agreements, mobile phone contracts, tuition fees and even supermarket offers all require us to apply functional maths skills, such as being able to calculate APR, compound interest and percentages, to real-life situations.
''But too many of our school leavers, who can perform complex mathematical equations and algebra, have no idea what basic financial terms like APR and PPI mean - leaving them without the necessary level of financial literacy to make decisions in an increasingly complex financial world.''
He added that financial education would be a long-term solution to irresponsible borrowing and personal insolvency.
''Furthermore, teaching people about budgeting and personal finance will help equip the workforce with the necessary skills to succeed in business and drive forward economic growth,'' he said.
Wendy van den Hende, chief executive of the Personal Finance Education Group (PFEG), said: ''Young people want to learn how to manage their money, and school is an excellent place for this to happen.
''Teachers clearly want it to be part of the curriculum, so that it is taken seriously and has the support it deserves to be taught effectively.''
Mr Lewis, who is behind the MoneySavingExpert.com website, said: ''We need compulsory financial education in our schools.
''Our nation is financially illiterate, for over 20 years we've educated our youth into debt when they go to university, but never about debt.
''Breaking this cycle will mean less mis-selling, fewer bad debts, better consumers and could save the public coffers a fortune.''


-----


Education minister Nick Gibb claims celebrity culture and obsession with wealth is harming children
British children are growing up in an “destructive” society obsessed with the celebrity way of life and need to be taught to live within their means, an education minister has warned.




Nick Gibb blames celebrity culture for giving children unrealistic expectations 
In an attack on contemporary values, Nick Gibb argued that a “got to have it now” culture was breeding unrealistic expectations of wealth in young people.
The schools minister said millions of children were being raised with the wrong priorities and equated wealth with success. He was speaking in a Commons debate about whether children should get a better financial education.
“Young people are growing up in a materialistic world for which they are often not fully prepared,” Mr Gibb said.
“The 'got to have it now’ culture means young people have high aspirations for branded or designer goods, often without the means to pay for them. People have unrealistic expectations about the lifestyle they can afford, fuelled by the glittering trappings of celebrities.”
Mr Gibb also told the Commons that he would like to see schools put a greater emphasis on maths teaching.
“We all have a job to do in moving young people’s aspirations away from this empty and often destructive perception of what success means,” he added.
“Developing children’s intellectual capabilities and interests is a direct antidote to materialism.
“Alongside that, young people must acquire a sense of responsibility. They need to contribute to society as responsible citizens and not take wild risks. They need to learn to live within their means.”
The Commons debate was tabled after more than 100,000 members of the public signed an online petition calling for schools to give lessons in personal finance. The campaign was backed by Martin Lewis, who runs the website MoneySavingExpert.com.
It was brought to Parliament by Justin Tomlinson, a Tory MP, who argued that people were making poor financial decisions “not necessarily through their own fault but because they didn’t have the skills”.
He said some people might have avoided crippling debt if they had been taught about interest rates at school.
Mr Gibb stopped short of backing compulsory financial education for all but pointed out that the Government was reviewing the National Curriculum.
The education minister’s attack on the “got to have it now culture” was made just weeks after Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, criticised the selfishness of the consumer society.
He said the iPad and iPhone products sold by Apple helped contribute to a culture of egotism, because of their emphasis on personal ownership.
“The values of a consumer society really aren’t ones you can live by for terribly long,” the Chief Rabbi said.
“The consumer society was laid down by the late Steve Jobs [the founder of Apple] coming down the mountain with two tablets, iPad one and iPad two, and the result is that we now have a culture of iPod, iPhone, iTune, I, I, I.”


Exodus as investors see no equity in equities (Australia)


Exodus as investors see no equity in equities
Gareth Hutchens
December 20, 2011


 <p></p>
INVESTORS continue to pull their money out of the stockmarket at record rates, ploughing their savings into term deposits in an attempt to escape the turmoil on global markets.

Australian term deposits have swelled by $276 billion since July 2007, growing at an annualised rate of 22.3 per cent.
The local equity market, which was worth $1.4 trillion in mid-2007, lost about $243 billion over the same period. It is now worth about $1.157 trillion.
 (1 trillion = 1 million x 1 million)

Squirrel
Saving for winter: There has been an 'almighty switch' from equities to term deposits.
Charlie Aitken, managing director at Bell Potter Securities, said there has been an ''almighty switch'' from equities to term deposits.

''It appears Australians approaching retirement simply want out of any form of ''volatile'' asset class, even if that means accepting diminishing unfranked yields in the term deposit market,'' Mr Aitken said. ''Cash rates falling sharply in the form of term deposit rates hasn't slowed the capital flow into those unfranked term deposits.''

At the peak of the market in July 2007, the term deposit market was worth $207 billion. That figure has since grown to $438 billion.

Meanwhile, the return on the local equity market declined by 4.4 per cent a year over the same period.

''We all know it, but it's got to the point now where equity yield, when you include the franking credits, commands a record premium in my lifetime to unfranked one-year term deposit rates,'' he added.

Mark Todd, a director at FIIG Securities, said investors were less likely to believe claims that there was value in equity markets. ''Investors wants less volatility and consistent returns,'' he said.

''We're seeing real growth in term deposits and fixed-income assets as people get more familiar with the concept of credit … We've seen this since the global financial crisis, when people took long-term views in the middle of the crisis. The rates they could get from the banks were good so they took two and three-year term deposits. This is just an evolution of that experience. They're familiar with consistent returns.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/money/investing/exodus-as-investors-see-no-equity-in-equities-20111220-1p3ec.html#ixzz1h4fbVcEf

Saturday 17 December 2011

No savings account beats inflation


No savings account beats inflation
Savers will struggle to erode the effects of rising inflation as the savings number of products dries up.

A sign warning of inflation
No savings account beats inflation Photo: .Keith Leighton / Alamy
Today's inflation figures show that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) fell during November from 5pc to 4.8pc.
In order to beat inflation, a basic-rate taxpayer paying 20pc would need to find a savings account paying 6pc per year, while a higher rate taxpayer at 40pc needs to find an account paying at least 8pc.
However, there is not a single savings account on the market that taxpayers can choose to negate the effects of tax and inflation whether it is CPI at 4.8pc or the Retail Prices Index (RPI) at 5.2pc.
The effect of inflation on savings means that £10,000 invested five years ago, allowing for average interest and tax at 20pc, would have the spending power of just £9,210 today.
Sylvia Waycot, spokesperson for Moneyfacts.co.uk, said: "Savers continue to lose out to inflation even though the rate fell today. With returns so low and inflation unsteady, people don't know which way to turn."
A growing number of people are falling into an eroding spending-power trap which has already wiped nearly £800 off the spending power of £10,000 in just five years, said Ms Waycot.
"Over the last year the number of savings accounts that beat inflation for basic rate taxpayers has dropped successively from 57 to absolutely none, which must leave savers wondering why they save at all," she said.

How Anyone Can Make A Million



How Anyone Can Make A Million


Is it really true, asks Aaron, my personal assistant, that I could become rich?
Yes, I say, if you do one simple thing. Come off it, Richard, that can t be true. Enter Alison, Aaron s younger friend. Alison is a hairdresser with pink, punkish hair. If it was easy, we d all be millionaires. You know as well as me that there are a few people with all this, she waves at the swimming pool, lush gardens, and tennis court, and then there are all the rest of us, struggling with money.
Aaron, Alison, and I are basking in November sunshine, sip- ping ice-cold drinks at my house in Spain. I make the most of my captive audience.
You re right, I tell Alison, most people ” even with big jobs and incomes to match ” don t have much spare cash. I don t say it s easy to accumulate money. I just say it s possible for everyone.
So what s the secret? Aaron is 23, right? Assume he saves $200 a month Pigs will fly, said Alison. Maybe, I say, but imagine he saves and invests $200 a month, and it grows at 10 percent a year for 42 years, until he s65. How much would Aaron have then? $200 a month is $2,400 a year ” times 42 is $100,000 and change. But you have to add the growth on top.
So, I face Aaron, what s your guess? Maybe double that. $200,000? Alison? I m no good at sums, she says, but it couldn t be that much. Maybe $150,000?
The right answer, I reveal, is over $1.4 million. They re stunned.
But that assumes Aaron could save 10 percent ” I don t believe that
Fine, I ll come to that later, I interrupt, but Alison, what about you?
Harrumph, she says. Nobody earns less than me. You know how little hairdressers get? Worst-paid profession. Wouldn t be worth saving.
How old are you? How much do you earn? Eighteen. $16,000 a year. A tenth is $1,600. If I saved that, which I don t think I could, what would my nest egg become?
I produce calculator and paper. The computer is faster, but I want to demonstrate the sums. Aaron fetches more drinks. When he s back, I m ready.
Whaddyathink? If Alison saved $1,600 a year till 65, what would she have?
Aaron grabs the calculator. $1,600 times 47 years equals around $75,000. He multiplies that by five, his estimate for compound interest. $400,000, he guesses.
No way, Alison shrieks. Can t be more than $250,000. Have I got news for you, I tell her. Clich s seem to be expected. The right answer is $1.5 million.
Impossible, she snorts. I earn much less than Aaron, there s not much difference in our age, you say I d get more than him. Calculator must be glitched.
No, I say. It makes sense. The compounding is so powerful, just a few extra years make all the difference. It s more important to start saving early than to earn a lot.
It s all just numbers until you say how we save 10 percent of our pay, said Alison. Don t see how we can, we always spendmore than we earn.
I ll come to that later, I said. And I will. But first, should we care about money?

Why do 20 percent own 84 percent?


Why do 20 percent own 84 percent?

Money is a force, like the wind, the waves, and the weather. Money dislikes being equally distributed. Money clonesmoney.
Why? How can we attract money?
Money obeys the 80/20 principle because of compound interest ” Einstein s most powerful force in the universe.
Start with a small dollop of money, save and invest it, then compound interest will do the rest.
In 1946 Anne Scheiber, who knew little about money, put $5,000 into the stock market. She locked away the share certificates and stopped worrying. By 1995 her modest nest egg had transmogrified into $22,000,000 ” up 440,000 percent! All courtesy of compound interest.
If we never save money, we will always be poor, no matter how much money we earn.
Most people have very little money because they don t save. The typical 50-year-old American has earned a great deal but has savings of just $2,300.
People with the most money have typically saved and invested it for many years. Compound interest multiplies savings in a breathtaking way.

Tuesday 13 December 2011

UK: No savings account beats inflation

UK:  No savings account beats inflation
Savers will struggle to erode the effects of rising inflation as there as the savings number of products dries up.

A sign warning of inflation
No savings account beats inflation Photo: .Keith Leighton / Alamy
Today's inflation figures show that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) fell during November from 5pc to 4.8pc.
In order to beat inflation, a basic-rate taxpayer paying 20pc would need to find a savings account paying 6pc per year, while a higher rate taxpayer at 40pc needs to find an account paying at least 8pc.
However, there is not a single savings account on the market that taxpayers can choose to negate the effects of tax and inflation whether it is CPI at 4.8pc or the Retail Prices Index (RPI) at 5.2pc.
The effect of inflation on savings means that £10,000 invested five years ago, allowing for average interest and tax at 20pc, would have the spending power of just £9,210 today.
Sylvia Waycot, spokesperson for Moneyfacts.co.uk, said: "Savers continue to lose out to inflation even though the rate fell today. With returns so low and inflation unsteady, people don't know which way to turn."
A growing number of people are falling into an eroding spending-power trap which has already wiped nearly £800 off the spending power of £10,000 in just five years, said Ms Waycot.
"Over the last year the number of savings accounts that beat inflation for basic rate taxpayers has dropped successively from 57 to absolutely none, which must leave savers wondering why they save at all," she said.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/8953110/No-savings-account-beats-inflation.html