Instruction

This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Should Greece be forgiven some of its debts - or should it just leave the eurozone?

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 09:05 GMT, 29 January 2015 | Updated: 09:10 GMT, 29 January 2015

Should Greece leave the eurozone?

The election of Syriza has put the question of whether some of Greece’s debts should be forgiven firmly on the table – yet perhaps it would simply be better off out of the euro altogether.

Syriza has been elected on a ticket of writing down some of Greece’s huge debts. This has so far been dismissed out-of-hand.

Martin Wolf made an excellent case as to why this is a mistake in the FT. He pointed out that both borrowers and creditors have a responsibility when loans are made – and that the eurozone has not been as extraordinarily generous to Greece in its crisis as is often made out.

The bulk of the loans to Greece by the eurozone and IMF went on avoiding its bad debts having to be written down – protecting those who lent it money.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Hit hard: Greece's GDP has plummeted since the onset of the crisis as it struggles with debts Hit hard: Greece's GDP has plummeted since the onset of the crisis as it struggles with debts

Analysis by blog Macropolis puts the total amount of loans from the eurozone and IMF between May 2010 and last summer at €227bn.

Macropolis writer Yiannis Mouzakis says: ‘There seems to be a general misconception that feeds a misleading narrative in which the loans were used to keep the Greek state afloat, maintain its basic operations and pay salaries of doctors, teachers and policemen.’

Yet he says that is ‘only part of the story’. Since 2013, Greece has run a primary surplus meaning that it spends less than it gets in.

His figures claim that the Greek state’s operating needs used up just 11 percent of the total funding, or about €27billion. Interest payments, maturing debt and helping the financial system ate up most of the rest.

Mouzakis argues: ‘To protect the integrity of the eurozone, the strategy has left Greece with a massive pile of debt and a quarter of the economy gone, still unable to stand on its own feet.’ 

As Wolf points out in the FT, at the same time Greece has suffered huge hardship. 

Unemployment has hit 26%, youth unemployment is above 50% and GDP and spending have dived – with the latter down at least 40% on his figures.

He argues that failing to offer debt relief will push Greece towards default and create an existential moment every time a future crisis befalls a euro nation.

Wolf says: ‘Creating the eurozone is the second-worst monetary idea its members are ever likely to have. Breaking it up is the worst.’

On that point though, I have to disagree.

I feel that we are at the point where keeping the eurozone together in its current format risks worse consequences that revising it and allowing some to leave.

Greece got into the mess it is in because of the eurozone. If the country was in the EU but not the currency union, it could have devalued, indulged in its own money-printing if it so chose, regained competitiveness and got going again.

The existing eurozone simply does not work. Its members should chalk that up to experience and get a new plan – perhaps a tighter and smaller currency union if they want one.

The current approach to solving the crisis involves printing vast sums of money and throwing it at a wall in the hope it sticks, while playing a game of extend and pretend on debt and forcing a nation deeper into crisis.

Greece has been strong-armed by the eurozone into racking up unpayable debts rather than sorting them out in the fashion that nations have done for many years - with some kind of default or relief. 

Undoubtedly, if Greece chose to exit the eurozone it would face great short-term pain. Yet by staying in it faces an awfully long wait for any gain - and the risk that down the line the same mistakes get made again.

The eurozone should recognise its mistakes and offer Greece the chance to leave. If it is so fearful that this will lead to other countries wanting to depart too, then perhaps it needs to take a long hard look at why.

Over the past two decades, the trouble the euro has caused seems to have far outweighed any benefits. It has surely triggered more division, economic pain, crisis and recriminations than continuing the old-fashioned EU without a currency union would have done.

How bad do things need to get for the eurozone leaders to put their hands up and say we made a mistake?

The eurozone should offer Greece debt relief if it stays in the euro, which is the case put forward in Syriza scoring its election victory. 

However, I can’t help but think it would be better to give the Greek people a referendum on whether they want to leave the eurozone while staying in the EU – and if Greece wants to go it should be allowed to and given the help it needs to get back on its feet. 

Where did the money go? Macropolis crunched the numbers on where EU, ECB and IMF loans went Where did the money go? Macropolis crunched the numbers on where EU, ECB and IMF loans went

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

MINOR INVESTOR: Is it time to buy shares on the dips or run for the hills?

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 16 October 2014 | Updated: 08:10 GMT, 17 October 2014

Is it time to buy on the dips or run for the hills?

Investors have been beaten up recently and markets have now turned an even deeper shade of red – London’s leading FTSE 100 index dropped 2.8 per cent yesterday and when I updated this column at 11.30am on Thursday it was done another 2 per cent.

Summer’s talk of complacent investors basking in a lack of volatility seems like a long way away.

The Footsie is down 10 per cent since the kids went back to school. Those who invest in smaller companies have suffered even worse. 


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

A bear's market: Should investors be hiding out like Paddington Bear or boldly buying shares A bear's market: Should investors be hiding out like Paddington Bear or boldly buying shares

The seemingly unstoppable US main markets have lost about 7% and it’s probably best not to mention too much about Europe.

Suffice it to say, the eurozone’s problems have not gone away and even our old friend Greece has returned to the crisis party – at one point yesterday shares in Athens were down 9%.

If you heed the investing wisdom that the best time to buy is when shares are unpopular, then it may be considered time to shop in the stock market sale.

Crumbling markets drag good prospects down with them, so you don’t even necessarily need to hunt among the bargain bin’s damaged goods.

The classic Warren Buffett line says, ‘be greedy when others are fearful’. But that’s easier said than done, and while I don’t think we are due a crash, I do think we are due a hefty correction - so this slide could have further to run.

(As noted in the update above the FTSE 100 was trading down another 2 per cent this morning, after I initially wrote this yesterday evening.)

Taking a leap into the market simply on the basis that it has sold off and must therefore be cheap, substantially raises the chance of taking a hit as it falls even further.

And that would run contrary to another bit of Buffett advice: ‘Rule No.1 : Never lose money, Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No.1.’

Buffettisms aside, what should an investor do next?

The gloomiest of bears would say, 'get out now, the crash is on its way’. Their argument that the world’s financial system has gone bonkers - and all this cheap money and quantitative easing will end in tears - has many merits.

Yet my personal view is that the markets have further to go in the medium-term.

It seems unlikely that after all its efforts to keep the market pumped up that the US will just stand by, watch it slump, and allow all that QE to peter out.

Likewise, it also seems unlikely that the eurozone will manage to avoid a full blast of some form of QE, and that provides another chance to restart the party.

Stock markets around the world are also relatively decent value in general – with some looking cheap. We’ve written quite a bit about CAPE, the cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio, which allows investors to compare valuations over time.

Enlarge   Hot or not: The world's cheapest and most expensive stockmarkets by mid-2014 CAPE values - red is most expensive and green cheapest. Hot or not: The world's cheapest and most expensive stockmarkets by mid-2014 CAPE values - red is most expensive and green cheapest.

US investor Meb Faber’s work using this to measure global value shows plenty of countries that are not expensive, although the US and some others do look over-valued.

The heat map above, compiled from mid-year CAPE figures by Ed Page-Croft, at Stockopedia, shows where markets are most expensive and cheapest.

The figures behind that show that the most expensive markets, Indonesia, Denmark and the US have values above 26, while the cheapest Greece, Russia and Ireland were all under 8. Faber's research says anything below 15 starts to look good value and anything above 20 is expensive.

The UK sat in the middle of the pile at 14, looking relatively decent value. It was also ranked 20 out of 42 on a value scale of stock markets created by Faber, which recently put together valuations based on CAPE, and cyclically adjusted price-to-book, dividend and cash flow measures.

The wild variations in value in stock markets around the world are also reflected in individual shares within them.

In the UK, technology and growth companies have been trading at eye-watering share prices compared to their lowly profits, while some solid and steady performers are valued lower than you might expect.

At the same time, cyclical shares have been beaten down - even while the consumer economy is theoretically improving - while mega-cap and some more defensive shares have stayed afloat.

Investors in smaller companies have also seen some very good prospects hit by a general malaise. The AIM index, made up of mainly smaller companies, is down 24 per cent since March - even its best companies, with strong balance sheets, that have beaten profit forecasts and raised dividends have suffered in the sell off.

If there is one thing to be taken from shares this year it is that the easiest pickings of the stock market’s post crisis five-and-a-half year run are gone.

Wobbles aside though, I feel there is reasonable hope for decent returns in the years to come. 

Taking stock of the situation, working out what looks decent value and being picky with your investments would seem like a good plan – and the best way to stack the investing odds in your favour.

In the Minor Investor column’s view, sitting tight, reassessing holdings and considering very selective long-term buys looks like the wisest move right now.

What will you do: Buy, sell or hold?

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Don't fear the effects of deflation, we've been feeling them for years

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 08:53 GMT, 12 February 2015 | Updated: 08:53 GMT, 12 February 2015

Modern day theory tells us that deflation is the stuff of nightmares, especially as the West’s consumer economies spent all night gorging on debt before heading for a nap.

Today the Bank of England’s quarterly inflation report may prove to be a deflation report, with a forecast of negative CPI in the months to come.

Yet I don’t think Britain’s consumer economy needs to fear the effects of deflation because we’ve been feeling them for years.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Going down: Inflation has dropped to just 0.5%, according to latest figures, and could fall further Going down: Inflation has dropped to just 0.5%, according to latest figures, and could fall further

Since the financial crisis arrived we’ve had:

Stagnant wages - and earnings falling in real terms. As most people pay their debts with their wages, this effectively means what they owe has swollen. The chance that anything we consider buying could get cheaper in the future, thanks to our shops’ obsession with almost permanent sales. Deflationary pressure hitting businesses’ pricing power, with the internet affecting everything from flights, to groceries, mini-cabs and any big ticket item you buy.Throughout most of this period we have suffered above target inflation thanks to the rising cost of life’s essential spending, on things such as food, energy and fuel.

It’s fairly safe to say that even though by historic standards inflation has been relatively low, it has been seen by many as the biggest threat to their finances. A threat big enough for The Labour party to place hefty emphasis in its electioneering on the ‘cost of living crisis’.

Now a deflationary effect has arrived, mainly because those things are getting cheaper.

Supermarkets are slugging it out and cutting prices, filling up your car costs less than a year ago and even the pantomime villain energy companies have cut people’s bills (albeit only ever so slightly and with sneaky delays).

This puts more money in people’s pockets, lowers many businesses’ cost of production and transport, and has arrived just as wages are finally showing signs of picking up.

Helping hand: The falling oil price has pushed down petrol costs and a supermarket battle has cut food prices

Another cost of living element that doesn’t get included in our official consumer prices index inflation measure - but was in old-fashioned retail prices inflation - comes from mortgages.

Fixed rate mortgages have been cut to astonishingly low levels. If you own your home and are minded to take advantage of them, you can save a lot of money on the annual cost of keeping a roof over your head.

Much of the deflationary pressure that we are seeing at the moment is putting more money in people’s pockets, whether it falls into the ONS basket of goods or in changes in the way we live.

One of the frustrating things I found when studying economics was the tendency of a great deal of the theory to come with caveats that in the real world these things doesn’t necessarily happen.

I am sure that many wise and well-informed economists could tell me exactly why I am wrong, but from my real world perspective a bit of deflation in modern-day Britain looks more like good news than bad.

‘Ah, but people like you are missing something,’ the sages say. ‘Deflation is an issue because it limits the power of central banks to stimulate the economy with low interest rates.’

All I can say to that is that we’ve had six years of a 0.5 per cent base rate and households and businesses’ chief response has been to pay off their debts not borrow and spend.

We might just find that a bout of deflation, which delivers a real return on savings, alleviates savers’ concerns about losing money and actually encourages those in the country with spare money to spend to get out and do so.

Off the back of more money in people’s pockets, tax receipts and our national income may rise while the cost of government borrowing stays low.

Deflation might not prove to be the monster lurking under the bed, after all.

PS: If you’re interested in reading more on why deflation isn’t always bad. This report Deflation in a historical perspective from the BIS was written in 2005 but is worth reading to find out about historic periods of deflation identified as good by the authors Michael Bordo and Andrew Filardo - and others seen as bad and ugly.

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Stamp duty reform is strong medicine, but it's not a cure for tax that still costs too much

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 4 December 2014 | Updated: 07:21 GMT, 5 December 2014

This is Money has campaigned for stamp duty reform for a long time.

It was a bad tax, which was unfairly levied, distorted the property market, and harmed the economy by inhibiting movement.

From midnight last night, the game changed for the better – I would argue that stamp duty is still too hefty, however.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

The stamp duty trap: How the £250,000 threshold would have risen if it had changed with house price inflation shown by the green line - instead it has stayed steady as shown by the red line. The stamp duty trap: How the £250,000 threshold would have risen if it had changed with house price inflation shown by the green line - instead it has stayed steady as shown by the red line.

George Osborne deserves praise for taking an axe to the slab system repeatedly made worse by his own actions and those of his predecessors.

That levied a rising percentage on the entire purchase price of a home as you climbed the bands – now it will rise income tax-style, with the higher rate only affecting amounts above thresholds.

For that reason I welcome yesterday’s changes – a properly worked through instant reform was a genuine Autumn Statement shock.

Fortunately, it will now be very difficult to ever go back to the old system.

But Mr Osborne still ducked a very big issue.

The new system saves most people money, but stamp duty bills will still be too high.

That’s because the old system had become so distorted thanks to the thresholds that chiefly hurt buyers never rising, despite 17 years’ worth of house price inflation.

If the £250,000 threshold had risen in line with house price inflation after Gordon Brown introduced it in 1997, it would stand at £787,500 today.

Meanwhile, the £500,000 threshold would stand at £1,575,000.

The problem is that Osborne has worked backwards from this colossal tax grab to deliver the numbers for his new system.

So someone buying a £400,000 home now saves £2,000, but they still have to hand £10,000 to the Government for moving home.

That’s too much. Until Mr Brown started his tinkering that buyer would have paid just £4,000 – and spending £400,000 on a home got you a lot more back then.

We managed to survive fine with 1% stamp duty across the board until then – it would be better to get back to a similar level now.

The problem is we have got too used to propping ourselves up on a bad tax. 

Changing its structure and shifting a heavier burden to those living in expensive areas is strong medicine but it’s not a cure. 

Who pays what? How the new stamp duty charges stack up Who pays what? How the new stamp duty charges stack up

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

MINOR INVESTOR: Put your trust in dividends - the Rolling Stones of investing

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 8 January 2015 | Updated: 15:08 GMT, 8 January 2015

The fifteen years since the FTSE 100 hit its all-time high have been a lesson in why dividends matter.

When that anniversary rolled round last week, the leading UK stock market index was down 4.3 per cent on the 6,930.2 points it reached as we prepared to celebrate the millennium.

Yet take into account dividends, as the FTSE 100 Total Return index does, and investors were up 58%.

That’s not much to write home about – an average of just 3% a year - but it’s considerably better than losing money.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Investor's little helper: Dividends have delivered quality and performance over time - like the Rolling Stones Investor's little helper: Dividends have delivered quality and performance over time - like the Rolling Stones

Look at a good dividend-tilted investment and things improve further.

City of London Investment Trust is what industry body the AIC dubs a dividend hero. It has increased its payout for an astonishing 47 years in a row.

Job Curtis has been at the helm of the investment trust since 1991.

I’d say he counts as one of the fund managers whose fees are worth paying – and the good news is that City of London is committed to keeping those fees low. It has ongoing charges of just 0.44 per cent and currently yields 4 per cent.

Since the Footsie hit that 1999 peak it has never regained, City of London's share price is up 43 per cent but it is up 185% on a total return basis with dividends reinvested.

It’s not just over the past 15 years that dividends matter. They are a proven cornerstone of performance and quality over a long time – the Rolling Stones of the investing world, perhaps.

The annual Barclays Equity Gilt study, which looks even further back than the Stones go, shows £100 put into the UK stock market in 1899 without dividends reinvested would have risen to £14,915 in 2014, whereas with dividends reinvested it would be worth £2.21million.

Go back to 1945, and £100 without dividends reinvested turned into £9,347 by 2014, while with dividends reinvested it would be worth £177,620.

Trends and fads come and go, markets rise and fall, but dividends deliver over time.

Yet, it’s important not to just be sucked into chasing the highest yielding shares.

Many successful income fund managers will tell you that whether you choose to hunt among the big guns or smaller companies, seeking shares where dividends consistently grow over time is the key to success.

This is especially true as eye-catching big yielding dividend shares can often be a value trap, with companies on their way to going bust or slashing their dividend.

The supermarkets' seemingly tasty big dividends have been a case in point this year. Today, Tesco cut its final dividend altogether. 

The other thing for share-picking investors to watch out for is dividend cover and cash flow. Can the company comfortably pay the dividend it is committed to and keep growing it. 

Final cut: Not all dividends are secure so it pays to check on a company's health - Tesco axed its payout today Final cut: Not all dividends are secure so it pays to check on a company's health - Tesco axed its payout today

Away from individual shares, there are a huge range of income funds and investment trusts to chose from. 

If you want to choose an active manager over a tracker and pay their higher fees, then I think it makes sense to opt for one who does something genuinely different to the market.

Picking one can seem a tricky task, but I would suggest looking at those whose managers look for companies that can keep raising dividends, are willing to stray further afield than the FTSE 100's dangerously concentrated list of big payers, and are happy to clearly articulate their approach and why they believe it works over the long term.

Not all will have market-beating yields. Three investment trusts that fit this bill and I like are Finsbury Growth and Income, Lowland and Diverse Income Trust. The former yields 2.1 per cent, the latter pair both yield 2.8 per cent. 

Nick Train, at Finsbury Growth and Income, typically holds less than 30 different companies with a focus on strong brand names with pricing power and longevity and a plan to hold them for the very long-term, for this he is often described as having a Warren Buffett-like approach. 

In contrast, James Henderson, manager of Lowland investment trust since 1990, holds more than 120 different companies but has a commitment not to invest more than half the trust into FTSE 100 companies. When I met him recently, he said that this approach of holding a large number of companies allowed him to target value and smaller company opportunities - and investing a small amount helps you buy earlier.

Gervais Williams, of Diverse Income Trust, invests in smaller companies and has recently written a book extolling their virtues, The Future is Small. He argues that small and micro cap shares have a huge opportunity to outperform lumbering large companies in a world where growth is slowing after the debt binge of the 2000s.

Each of this trio has a different approach to investing, each is happy to clearly articulate it and stick follow their convictions, yet all put a focus on growth supported by dividends.

In the investment fund world, there are similar options that stand out. Our readers may often moan about the level of coverage given to Neil Woodford, but his track record is exceptional. With his new Woodford Equity Income fund he has shown a clear desire to back his long-standing belief that healthcare and drugs firms are undervalued and will outperform and an interest in biotech and technology-skewed firms.

Other strong-performing funds include Unicorn UK Income and PFS Chelverton UK Equity Income, both aimed at smaller and mid-cap dividend payers, and JO Hambro UK Equity Income, which claims a contrarian approach by selling out of firms if they fall below the FTSE All-Share average yield..

Those who prefer a low-cost passive investment can also hunt out trackers or ETFs that skew towards dividends - or simply opt to target markets with a good dividend and make sure they reinvest them

I’m a firm believer in the core and satellite idea of investing, if like me you can’t help but dabble in active share or fund picking.

This involves a core of solid investments with a bit of racy or offbeat stuff round the sides.

I can’t think of a better thing to place at that core than solid dividends reinvested.

The dividend heroes: The AIC's 2014 list of the investment trusts with the longest history of raising dividends The dividend heroes: The AIC's 2014 list of the investment trusts with the longest history of raising dividends

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

MINOR INVESTOR: Is the FTSE 100 finally about to crack 7,000 - and should we even care?

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 20 November 2014 | Updated: 10:01 GMT, 21 November 2014

 We may be gearing up for the Footsie’s final 2014 attempt at cracking the 7,000 point mark.

I have a theory that the FTSE100 is the world’s unluckiest major stock market. While other markets around the world have beaten their all-time highs, London’s leading index gets blown off course each time it makes a break for that elusive 6,930.2, set on the 31 December 1999.

It has been credit-crunched, eurozone-crisised, taper-tantrumed and Scottish-referendumed along the way.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Stuck in a rut: The FTSE100 has still failed to make it past its all-time high of 1999 Stuck in a rut: The FTSE100 has still failed to make it past its all-time high of 1999

But really as investors (and journalists) we shouldn’t be worrying in the slightest about that level.

It's a nice statistic to wheel out, but ultimately it's just a number and a quirk that it's not been surpassed. 

Common sense tells us we should try and make a commitment to being more sensible and less superstitious investors.

We should consider the market’s long-term power to grow with dividends - which I believe it can; whether it’s reasonable value - I think the UK probably is; and whether we must think more broadly than home turf when investing - to which the answer is definitely.

It’s also worth noting that including dividends the FTSE 100 is well above its peak on a total return basis.

As shares took a pummelling a month ago, I asked in the Minor Investor column: ‘Is it time to buy on the dips or run for the hills?’

The answer was the former, it seems, but at the time it didn’t feel like that. The question for most investors was whether it was the start of a proper slump.

And that’s the fundamental problem with investing, the difficulty of buying low and selling high.

It feels much more tempting to buy now when those shares are 8% more expensive.

I certainly failed the test of buying on the dips in the October storm. I was tempted to add to a few of my investment trust holdings, Finsbury Growth and Income, and both Baillie Gifford’s Japan and Shin Nippon.

But I baulked at the chance to shop in the stock market sale.

With Finsbury Growth, I was concerned we could see more of a rout and opted to wait and see only to regret it when the price had jumped back up. It is up 10 per cent, since mid-October.

With the Japan trusts I was concerned that I would end up with too much of my portfolio weighted towards them. They are up 17 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively.

It's tempting to kick myself again for failing to time the market, but I'm avoiding that temptation. Market timing is, after all, a trick that sounds easy, but is nigh on impossible to consistently do.

Unless you have developed a particular flair for it that stands up to an honest appraisal, it’s best to keep trying it to a minimum. And that appraisal of your skill needs to be more rigorous than the classic ‘I’m a better driver than the average person’ one.

A whole host of investing wisdom suggests that a far better plan is to take the matter out of your own hands.

Whether you decide to take the active or passive route, regular monthly investing delivers the benefits of what the experts call pound cost averaging – essentially you invest the same amount regularly and thus get more for your money when prices are lower.

The idea is that gains over time mean you win in the long run. 

Investing this way also has another major advantage – it seriously limits your opportunity to make bad decisions.

You can always hold back a little of your savings each month for a riskier portfolio on the side – a sop to those of us who cannot shake the temptation to try and beat the market. 

The price is not right: How buying the 25 most expensive large cap US shares in the market each year (blue line) compares to simply buying the wider large cap market (orange line) The price is not right: How buying the 25 most expensive large cap US shares in the market each year (blue line) compares to simply buying the wider large cap market (orange line)

Rather than timing the market it may be wiser to concentrate on avoiding buying expensive stuff. 

The chart above from a post by Patrick O'Shaugnessy on his US blog Millenial Invest makes that point. It shows the performance of buying the 25 most expensive large cap US shares each year and holding them for the next 12 months, compared to simply buying the market.

The wider market clearly delivers much better returns than chasing highly-rated glamour shares - it turned $1 into $154, compared to the latter's $16. One thing that's worth noting is that the vertical scale on the chart is not in proportion, so visually it under-represents the benefit of avoiding the expensive companies. 

'Still not convinced that buying these expensive stocks is a bad idea?' he asks. 'This strategy of buying the most expensive stocks has underperformed the rest of the market in 87% of five year periods and 95% of 10 year periods. Would you play any game that had those odds? Investors do all the time.' 

It also pays to spread your risk and play the long game.

That long game was the subject of a good post by John Kingham over at the UK Value Investor blog recently. He too riffed on the FTSE 100 making 7,000 theme and pointed out that investors should be thinking much further ahead than that.

We should be thinking of the 10,000 or 20,000 mark, he argued.

John wrote: 'Such large numbers can appear ludicrous, and sometimes attract ridicule. But did you enter the stock market to gain 10%, or are you looking to double or quadruple your capital (or income) over the longer term?'

His post crunches some numbers on share prices and dividends and comes to the conclusion that we’ve seen some years of substandard FTSE 100 returns, but this is most likely due to the boom and bust cycle.

‘So while infinite growth on a finite planet is still impossible it doesn’t look like we’ve hit the buffers just yet, and in the longer term the FTSE 100 is likely to blow right past 7,000, and even 10,000, with relative ease,’ John says.

As for what to do when the market storms hit along the way, I recently caught up with Tom Stevenson, of Fidelity, to discuss that for the video you’ll find below.

It’s food for thought for when the next correction rolls round, which one certainly will.

Whether we’re at Footsie 7,000 by then is another matter.

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true}); DM.later('bundle', function(){ if (window.ArticlePage) { new ArticlePage(); } });


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Six simple steps to invest wisely

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 09:14 GMT, 15 January 2015 | Updated: 13:48 GMT, 26 January 2015

The New Year always starts with a barrage of suggestions for how to fix your finances. 

Some are excellent, some state the bleeding obvious, and many will be followed for only slightly longer than it takes to lose all that important paperwork you put to one side. 

At the risk of adding to an already extremely crowded market, a recent dinner conversation with a friend made me think about trying to distil some thoughts on how to invest wisely into a simple plan. 

I can’t lay claim to the original thought behind these tips, nor would I want to. Instead, these are ideas that I have gleaned magpie-fashion from investors I have spoken to - or read - whose wisdom seems to shine the brightest.

Scroll down for video 


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Hatching a plan: Can investing wisely be distilled into six simple steps to make more money? Hatching a plan: Can investing wisely be distilled into six simple steps to make more money?

1. Spend less money – invest the bulk of what you save and think long-term

In an increasingly have and have-not world there’s a danger in the simple suggestion to spend less money. There are many people in modern-day Britain for whom spending less in not an option – they struggle to actually have enough to cover the essentials.

I wouldn’t seek to tell them to spend less from my position of comfortable financial privilege. For the purposes of this though, I will assume that those reading an article titled Six simple steps to wiser investing have some money to spare.

Many of us could spend less money. That doesn’t mean fully embracing an ascetic lifestyle but simply trimming back the unnecessary, avoiding waste, and not paying over the odds.

A lot of stuff can be filed under the not paying over the odds category, not just discretionary spending. The big ones are your essentials, such as a mortgage, energy bills, credit cards and loans, car and home insurance and other similar bills.

Shifting these can save a huge amount of money. Mortgages are pretty much as cheap as they have ever been right now, there are lots of people paying at least a hundred pounds a month more than they need to. That’s £1,200 a year they could be investing instead.

Spending less money doesn’t mean forgoing all fun. Life is too short not to enjoy yourself. My personal theory is that I am unlikely to spend my final days fondly remembering that snowboarding trip I didn’t go on so that I could put some more in my pension.

Just make sure that your discretionary spending counts. Be judicious and sparing. Buying good stuff helps here. 

2. Take matters out of your hands – never underestimate the power of regular monthly direct debit investing

It’s hard to find someone you can rely on, even yourself. 

A regular monthly payment or direct debit out of your account tends to be a far more reliable investing companion that your best intentions to move the money yourself.

The latter opens up a host of opportunities for forgetting, diverting the money elsewhere, or investing it in the wrong place.

It’s all too tempting to invest too heavily in the thing that’s done well and is now expensive and too lightly in the thing that’s done badly and is now cheap. This is fine if you are employing a momentum investing strategy, but most people aren’t.

The beauty of regular investing is something called pound-cost-averaging. Essentially, by sticking the same amount into the same decent investment over the long-term you benefit from the stock market’s rise and fall. When the market is down and things are cheap you get more for your money, when it goes back up you benefit.

Despite what the rather disappointing performance of the FTSE 100 over the past 15 years tells us, shares do rise over time. Over the past 114 years the average real return (after inflation) of UK shares has been 5.1 per cent a year, according to the Barclays Equity Gilt study. That compares to 1.2 per cent from UK Government bonds and 0.8 per cent from cash.

Another handy aspect of regular investing is that it removes both lump sum inertia and the temptation to try to time the market. The great fear in putting a chunk of money into investments is that the market will promptly take a dive. Timing the market is notoriously difficult. In fact, one of Britain's top performing fund manager's Mark Slater gave our readers this investing tip last year.

‘Market timing is very difficult for everybody. One person in a hundred is generally good at it and they should keep doing that,' he said. 'The other 99 people if they’re not good at it shouldn’t try and be good at it.' 

Do yourself a favour, get money out of your account after payday each month and put directly into your investments. Do check those investments are still up-to-scratch at least once a year, however.

Falling short: The chart shows how 15 years after its all-time peak, the FTSE 100 never managed to regain it - over the long-term though shares have a much better record Falling short: The chart shows how 15 years after its all-time peak, the FTSE 100 never managed to regain it - over the long-term though shares have a much better record

3. Asset allocate – don’t doze off here, this is potentially the most important thing you’ll do

Asset allocation. Zzzzzz. There is possibly no phrase in mainstream investing more likely to send people to sleep than asset allocation.

That’s unfortunate because this is really important. 

At the simplest level it involves how much money you put into shares, bonds and cash. The idea is that spreading your investments across these main asset classes helps protect you when things do badly.

Shares deliver the best returns over time but are at the greatest risk of a big fall; bonds are traditionally less volatile but deliver lower long-term returns; cash is safe but low return.

Below the headline level of asset allocation into shares, bonds and cash, remember to diversify. Sticking all your wealth in one company’s shares, one type of bond and one bank account does not count as successful asset allocation.

To decide on how you should asset allocate you need to consider your attitude to risk, how much you can afford to lose and what period you have to invest over.

There are some general rules of thumb that usually get put forward, typically related to age, goals, tolerance to losing money.

It is well worth spending at least half-an-hour reading up on this, you might want to spend much longer. There are a wealth of studies that suggest asset allocation is more important to long-term returns than picking funds or shares.

At the very least think of asset allocation as a seatbelt – you may not crash but you’re much better off wearing one.

4. Invest in the broadest and cheapest tracker fund

The man judged to be the world’s greatest investor, Warren Buffett, says you should avoid trying to pick winners. Instead of trying to find a great share or fund, Buffett argued most people should opt for a simple low-cost index tracker in his annual letter to investors last year.

'My money, I should add, is where my mouth is,' he said, before describing the investing instructions left in his will for a trust for his wife.

'My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10 per cent of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90 per cent in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)'

In suggesting this Buffett echoed the words of his mentor Benjamin Graham.  He advocated that most investors should take a passive approach and buy every company in the index.

This makes it impossible to beat the market, yet in reality most share-picking investors and the average professional fund manager will not beat the market either.

Once you try to pick a winner you introduce the chance that you will get things wrong, and either pick a dud or pass up the opportunity to buy something that does very well.

Over time, that counts for a lot and, on average, active investing ends up underperforming.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this theory means that you should try and spread your investments as widely as possible.

Buy just the FTSE 100 and you risk missing out when the UK’s leading index doesn’t do very well but the US stock market does (a brief introduction to that is the Footsie’s performance over the past 15 years in which it has never managed to regain its December 1999 peak.)

The advent of the low-cost tracker fund has made this kind of investing very easy and very cheap. Vanguard’s LifeStrategy funds invest around the whole world, and can be bought with different percentages of bonds and shares. Their ongoing charges are just 0.24 per cent.

> Is this as easy as investing gets? The tracker funds that do it all for you 

Sage advice: If Warren Buffett likes low-cost tracker funds maybe you should too Sage advice: If Warren Buffett likes low-cost tracker funds maybe you should too

5. If you disagree with step number 4, be more critical of what you choose to back

If I’m going to be entirely honest, the theory in point number 4 doesn’t sound like much fun. 

It’s a great easy option and I fully understand why long-term it is probably the sensible course of action.

Yet, I am interested in investing and the world of funds, shares, bonds and markets. This means that I want to look into things that I think will do well and am willing to devote some time and effort to researching them. I am also willing to take on the chin any losses such an approach incurs.

If you are going to be an active investor though, it pays to be very critical of things you choose to back. The investing world thrives on hype and hot properties. The markets are a daily soap opera and there are plenty of characters in it trying to sell you a dream.

There are plenty of active investments made on gut feeling that pay off, but there are an awful lot of bad decisions driven by fear and greed that end up costing people a lot of money.

Don't mistake luck for investing prowess. 

At the very least evaluate investments carefully, question what people tell you and think about how things fit into your strategy and portfolio.

I think value, quality and dividends are the key to long-term returns. But that’s just my personal view, I’d actively encourage anyone reading this to question it.

6. Read more books and considered thinking on investment

One of the pleasures of the internet is that is has put the greatest library the world has ever seen on our desk tops, on our sofas and in our pockets. It has not only never been easier to find interesting things to read online, but it has also never been easier to track down a book.

There are lots of very good books written about investing – more than most people will ever get close to reading. A substantial number of them are entertaining reads. Track down some and read them, absorb the contents and question them. 

You may even then want to read the debate online about their merits.

And it’s not just books. One of the interesting aspects of investing that has been drawn out even further by the internet age is investors’ willingness to share ideas.

There’s a lot of get-rich quick nonsense out there and a lot of shameless self-promotion, but also some really interesting, considered and engaging blogs and websites. 

It pays to read not just the opinions and thoughts of those you like, but also those that challenge your thinking.

Explore and read some. 

> Five of the best investing books by the Minor Investor column - and reader's tips too

And finally...the investing blog post I think everyone should read

The link below is to a post from the Monevator website - one of those very good investing sites that I alluded to above and a regular read of mine.

I read its post after I had planned this article, it covers similar ground and many of our points match. I think the Monevator post is an excellent and thought-provoking piece. I’d strongly advise a read of both it and the comments below it.

> The investing basics that underpin success

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

CAPE chart shows UK shares are near the cheapest they've been in 40 years

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 17:58 GMT, 17 October 2014 | Updated: 08:05 GMT, 18 October 2014

The FTSE 100 bounced today at the end of a bad week, but the question on investors’ lips is whether this correction is a buying opportunity or the start of something much worse.

Summing up the dilemma are two interesting views. One from FundExpert’s Brian Dennehy on the possibility of a Footsie slide as low as 5,000 points - the other from Hargreaves Lansdown’s Laith Khalaf, suggesting that UK shares are on a lowly valuation - and that spells decent potential.

The CAPE chart below that I created highlights how the UK market is near the cheapest it has been over almost 40 years.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Cheap trick: Measured by CAPE, the UK market is almost as cheap as it has been at any point in the past 40 years - the red line shows the cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio for the UK since 1976 Cheap trick: Measured by CAPE, the UK market is almost as cheap as it has been at any point in the past 40 years - the red line shows the cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio for the UK since 1976

CAPE is the name given to the cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio, which is a tool investors use to compare value over time – and something I touched on in this week’s Minor Investor column.

On this the current UK market CAPE ratio stands at 14 for what is broadly the equivalent of the FTSE All-Share using the data from Thomson Datastream.

That compares favourably to a long-run average of 19.6, although it stands someway above the 11.4 it hit at the bottom of the market slump in 2009.

The premise lying behind the CAPE investor’s theory is that you greatly increase your chances of success by buying in when markets look cheap compared to their long-term levels. 

By comparison, if markets look expensive on a CAPE basis then that flashes a warning sign.

Laith also sent over the chart below, where each dot shows the monthly CAPE ratio of the UK stock market since December 1974, plotted against investor’s returns over following five years.

‘There is a clear inverse relationship between the CAPE ratio and the five year returns,’ he says. ‘In other words, the lower the CAPE ratio when you buy in, the higher your returns have tended to be, and vice versa.’

A fair wind: Each dot on the chart above shows the returns over five years after investing at different cape ratios since December 1974.  The trend shows the lower the CAPE ratio, the greater future returns  A fair wind: Each dot on the chart above shows the returns over five years after investing at different cape ratios since December 1974.  The trend shows the lower the CAPE ratio, the greater future returns 

There has been a lot of research to back CAPE investing theories up. 

A wealth of it on the US market comes from Professor Robert Shiller who popularised the CAPE or PE10 ratio, which it is also called as it uses ten-year earnings.

This is Money has also recently featured the work of US investor Meb Faber who has built a global CAPE portfolio that takes aim at the world’s cheapest stock markets.

But it’s vital to bear in mind that CAPE is a relatively blunt tool that is best for comparing valuations over time, and as such it’s not a measure for market timing - which even with a sharp tool is notoriously hard to get right.

Expensive markets often get more expensive and cheap markets often get cheaper.

Had you decided that the market looked cheap at a CAPE value of 17 in July 2008 and bought in, then you still had a painful 20 per cent drop to go before the FTSE All-Share bottomed out in January 2009.

That is the underlying point behind Brian Dennehy highlighting a potential dive to 5,000 for the FTSE 100. 

If the 1.75 per cent FTSE 100 bounce we saw today is just a minor rally amid the correction, there is a possibility we could head all the way down to 5,000, which is where Brian suggests some very broad technical analysis suggests investors would buy back in.

He says: ‘From 2009 to 2012 the 5000 level on the FTSE 100 index can clearly be observed as a point at which buyers were sucked in – it is as simple as using a ruler and pencil to draw a straight line across a graph, and in such volatile times it pays to keep analysis simple.

‘We don’t need to try and rationalise why they will probably buy at that level - there will be many reasons across the range of investors -we just need to know that investors turn buyers at around that level, a level which was established over a number of years.’

To help visualise that I’ve got the digital equivalent of that ruler and pen out and marked in the 5,000 line on the seven-year FTSE 100 chart below. I also marked in the 6,000 line where Brian says there is also a line of support, albeit weaker. 

On Thursday afternoon, he told me: ‘At the moment we would expect the stock market to hesitate (and bounce) around that level before heading lower again, towards 5,000.’

Support: Brian Dennehy suggests that the FTSE 100 has key support lines around 6,000 and 5,000. Support: Brian Dennehy suggests that the FTSE 100 has key support lines around 6,000 and 5,000.

Even flagging the possibility of the stock market heading all the way down to 5,000 – a 27 per cent drop from September’s peak – will bring the inevitable suggestions of doom-mongering.

But Brian points out that it is important not to dismiss the possibility out-of-hand, even if you disagree with the analysis.

He said: ‘For the avoidance of doubt, these are not predictions. They are more in the category of bleeding obvious observations, and such roadmaps help investors not become too emotional as this particular post-Lehman’s episode unfolds.

‘This is important for investors for two reasons. For existing investors in the market understanding this possibility means managing your expectations, and not getting spooked into selling if those lower levels are hit – that is assuming that your portfolio matches your attitude to investment risk, and your willingness to accept this kind of volatility.

‘For those who have kept some powder dry, it will help you visualise the point at which you could consider buying – and help you not get spooked into inaction at that lower level.’

So there you have it, the investor’s dilemma: UK shares are cheap but also carry a sizeable risk of falling much further.

A Catch 22 version of a buyer’s market.

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

SIMON LAMBERT: Banks and building societies profit nicely from the savings squeeze

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 27 November 2014 | Updated: 11:15 GMT, 27 November 2014

The letters and emails have landed with depressing regularity over the past two years for savers.

They often contain some weasel words, such as ‘great rate’, ‘competitive offer’, or ‘rewarding’, yet the overall gist is the same - your already paltry savings rate is being cut.

But next time you read an excuse about the difficult low interest rate environment consider this, Britain’s banks and building societies are doing quite nicely.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Bouncing back: Nationwide's net interest margin, which measures earnings on savings and loans, has risen substantially to stand above its pre-financial crisis levels Bouncing back: Nationwide's net interest margin, which measures earnings on savings and loans, has risen substantially to stand above its pre-financial crisis levels

A stark illustration of this arrived in Nationwide’s half-year results this week. 

It revealed its net interest margin – measuring earnings on the gap between savings and loans rates – had leapt to 1.48 per cent from 1.13 per cent a year earlier.

That doesn’t sound like much, but it translates into an extra £336million in the coffers of Britain’s biggest building society, to take net interest income to a cool £1.42billion.

Nationwide could have foregone that £336million from the higher margin between April and September to keep savings rates higher - instead it fed through to higher profits just shy of £600million.

I don’t want to pick on Nationwide, but I’m going to because it is the largest building society and its results on Tuesday highlighted how it dominates the market.

It said it took an astonishing 21 per cent of the rise in cash Isa balances triggered by the new higher £15,000 allowance over the reporting period.

It is opening a new current account every 50 seconds and has a combined current account and savings market share of 13.8 per cent – something it wants to grow further.

To give Nationwide its dues, it does lots of good things. 

I praised its new Impulse Saver app that allows people to save small amounts on the move in this column a few weeks ago. 

It is offering better rates to existing customers and has fulfilled its building society label with some very keen mortgage pricing.

But I’m a long-term customer, so I also know that it has cut savings rates this year - my Flexclusive saver was recently slashed from 2 per cent to 1.2 per cent.

I also know that the reward I get for nine years with the building society is a princely 1.3 per cent rate on my Loyalty Saver account.

Cracking under pressure: Savings rates have been steadily cut over the past two years - with banks and building societies blaming the low interest rate environment Cracking under pressure: Savings rates have been steadily cut over the past two years - with banks and building societies blaming the low interest rate environment

Savers have seen another year of painful cuts – the finger of blame is pointed at that low rate environment.

Nationwide’s margin is better now than in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

A year ago it was broadly level with those years.

A similar story can be seen across our other big building societies. YBS’s half-year margin was up to 1.57 per cent from 1.23 per cent a year earlier, Skipton’s rose to 1.45 per cent from 0.89 per cent.

The major factor lying behind this is the savings squeeze, which dates back to a Funding for Lending-inspired race to the bottom that all but destroyed competition for your money.

Until Funding for Lending arrived savings rates had help up remarkably well considering the 0.5 per cent Bank of England base rate. That was because enough banks and building societies needed savers’ cash to boost their balance sheets that it created a market where they had to vie with each other to attract deposits.

The Bank of England’s scheme sank that with its cheap funding at 0.75 per cent to tap into. There have been more than 2,500 savings rate cuts since, according to our sister publication Money Mail.

The excuse has continually been that with interest rates stuck at such a low level, savers simply cannot be offered more.

What’s interesting is that if you examine the margins, they actually started to pick up about two years ago after Funding for Lending was introduced.

To put not too fine a point on it, we’ve suffered rate cuts and hard luck stories but savings and loans have been getting more profitable.

To be fair to building societies, their margins are generally much lower than the banks’.

Lloyds, for example, reported a margin of 2.4 per cent in its most recent results – up from 2.1 per cent a year before. Meanwhile Santander’s half-year margin was 1.8 per cent, up from 1.46 per cent, Tesco Bank’s was 4.4 per cent up from 4.2 per cent.

Yet banks have shareholders to answer to and reward, whereas building society members are meant to see profit ploughed into giving them better deals.

These rising margins are not a shock occurrence, this is a trend that has been happening for some time.

The steady climb in margins at some of our biggest building societies while savings rates are being cut adds a lot of weight to savers’ complaints of a raw deal.

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

SIMON LAMBERT: How heavily should inheritance be taxed?

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 08:21 GMT, 2 October 2014 | Updated: 08:31 GMT, 3 October 2014


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Rest in peace: The pensions death tax at 55% has had its day - will inheritance tax now be cut too? Rest in peace: The pensions death tax at 55% has had its day - will inheritance tax now be cut too?

How heavily should inheritance be taxed?

The latest step in the pensions revolution slashed the tax when pots are passed on - and also put inheritance back in the spotlight.

Under the old rules pensions which were still invested could be passed on, but a 55% death tax applied.

Now, depending on how it is done, retirees can leave remaining pots to their loved ones tax-free, or at the beneficiary's income tax level.

The money will be taxed if the pension holder who dies is aged over 75 and the beneficiaries withdraw it.

A crucial point here is that this income tax rate will be decided by adding bequeathed money to your normal income.

Someone who earns £30,000 a year, gets given £40,000 and withdraws it as income would not pay basic rate tax on it all, but 40% tax on the total sum above the higher rate tax threshold.

Nevertheless, despite the marginal tax rate treatment making the Chancellor's latest pensions giveaway not quite as generous as it may first seem, the end of the death tax represents a major shift.

So is it a victory for the prudent who have saved hard, or a means of entrenching wealth and privilege?

Critics argue the latter - as they do against the long-running campaign to raise the inheritance tax threshold.

Personally, I disagree with them. At the very top end of society inherited wealth may do that but the debate here surrounds those whose home and other assets deliver a comfortable £1million or £1.5million estate - not the very wealthy passing on entire country estates.

Inheritance tax is charged at 40% on estates above £325,000, although married couples and civil partners can double that to £650,000. The Tories promised to raise the threshold to £1m before the last election and then ditched their pledge, angering many voters.


The question now is whether inheritance tax goes back on the agenda – and if so how many should be caught in its net?


Under the current regime, increasing numbers of estates have been ensnared by inheritance tax.That is forecast to continue, largely driven by rising house prices and the share of property wealth owned by older generations.


The Office of Budget Responsibility tips the inheritance tax take to almost double from £3.1billion in 2012/13 to £5.8billion in 2018/19. It expects IHT receipts to grow by 11 per cent a year between 2014 and 2018 - with the number of estates hit rising from one in twenty to one in ten.


And rightly so, the supporters of taxing inherited wealth say.


This is unearned money for the beneficiary, which keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.


You don’t need to be a keen student of Thomas Piketty’s Capital to understand their argument. It’s a lot easier to make money if you already have some money behind you.


Furthermore, the sizeable chunk of our wealth in our homes means that the anti-inheritance lobby argue that it not only entrenches wealth individually but also regionally – inheritance tax is mainly a southern England problem.


A robust argument against being overly concerned with easing the inheritance tax burden for the comfortably off comes when that is balanced against the benefits freeze, which will see the society’s poorest lose more of their meagre income to inflation over the next two years.


We should be hiking inheritance tax not campaigning to cut it, many argue. Any call for reform that lessens the amount it brings in is wrong.


I sympathise but cannot agree.


Inheritance tax has become a bad tax. In principle some form of death duty may be justifiable, but inheritance tax’s creep means too much is levied on too many people’s estates, at too low a threshold.


You don’t need to be a raging free market capitalist to believe that. I wouldn't consider myself one and am all for tax being used to redistribute some wealth.


But inheritance tax in its current form is a tax on aspiration. One of the reasons people work hard is to leave money to their offspring – you can argue the right or wrong of doing so – but this seems to be hard-wired into us.


Should the state take 40 per cent of the wealth you have built up for your children and grandchildren? Does it have a right to lay claim to this?


The problem is that the bulk of that wealth in the UK is in housing. It is unchecked property inflation that has pushed most families over the £650,000 doubled limit, not years of prudent saving or enterprise.


Thus the argument is that by using IHT to redistribute such wealth we can at least keep some semblance of property mobility, rather than inheritance meaning only the rich can keep living in expensive areas.


This ignores two things.


Firstly, that it doesn’t appear to work - a rising IHT burden has done nothing to halt the increasing dominance of the wealthy in popular areas.


Secondly, there are downsides to being a normal person who has lived for a long time in an expensive area, mainly relating to the difficulty of your adult children being able to live in their home town.


A proper discussion of those points is an argument for another day, suffice it to say they are among the thorniest issues in an emotive debate.

A problem for the South's comfortably off: If you live in St Albans then inheritance tax is far more likely to be an issue than if you live in St Helens A problem for the South's comfortably off: If you live in St Albans then inheritance tax is far more likely to be an issue than if you live in St Helens


Perhaps instead of simply crudely hiking the inheritance tax threshold there is another answer - it could be wiser to rethink the tax itself.


The IHT problem typically comes back to property inflation wealth. So why not create an incentive for getting money out of the older generation’s large valuable homes – where it is parked - and into the economy?


Separate property out in an estate. Then above a tax-free threshold, as we have now, charge a lower rate of inheritance tax on non-property assets, while making it easier to give that money away when you are still alive.


At the moment the seven-year rule means that if you give assets away and survive for seven years they fall outside of the inheritance tax net, die before then and they form part of your taxable estate.


That stalls people from giving away their wealth. Seven years is a long time, people question whether they will make it, and ask if there is any point in going to all the trouble of selling their home and downsizing if they won’t.


Cut the time period to three-and-a-half years and it changes the game, especially if that was combined with a lower 30 per cent inheritance tax on non-property assets if you die.


People would have a choice, keep their large family home and pay the inheritance tax, or downsize and pass the wealth on while they can enjoy seeing it spent – with a lower tax rate if the Grim Reaper catches them out.


Cash passed through the generations could help fund deposits for homes, start-up cash for new businesses, university fees for graduates, or help with setting up homes or growing a family.


It doesn’t get round the insolvable problem of rich people being richer than poor people, but it does get money flowing round the economy and that’s often the best way to redistribute wealth.

This column has been extended after a shorter version was initially published this morning (Simon Lambert, 2nd October 2014)

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

THE MINOR INVESTOR: UK shares look good value now on CAPE

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 26 February 2015 | Updated: 17:29 GMT, 26 February 2015

It seems highly unlikely that during his 1980s purple patch Prince imagined one of his hits would be wheeled out by financial journalists 33 years later.

But this week we got to use our ‘party like it’s 1999’ headlines, as the FTSE 100 finally cracked its all-time high set at the end of the last century.

Fittingly for the Footsie, another line in that famous Prince chorus included the words, ‘two thousand zero zero, party over, oops out of time’.

After hitting that high on the last trading day of 1999, the stock market promptly sank and took 15 years to get back there.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Long-time coming: The FTSE 100 took more than 15 years to regain its record high Long-time coming: The FTSE 100 took more than 15 years to regain its record high

That lost decade-and-a-half would have proved a serious drawback to a UK index investor.

It has also put a dent in the argument that long-term investing pays off. 

Even if you take dividends into account Britain’s stock market performance has been decidedly lack lustre - only just staying ahead of inflation.

But shares spending that time in the doldrums is not such terrible news for those buying in now.

There is a lot more room for improvement in the 2015 vintage stock market than the 1999 one.

In a neat twist of fate, like that FTSE 100 record, This is Money is also 15 years old. We were a tiny part of the great dotcom revolution investors were piling into. 

Take a look at the Wayback Machine link here to our website in that era and the picture below – the digital world looks very different now.

Back to the future: This is Money's homepage from February 2000 shows what the dotcom boom looked like Back to the future: This is Money's homepage from February 2000 shows what the dotcom boom looked like

Smart technology is everywhere and it is being used not just by digital firms but by companies across the board to make more money and drive down costs.

The promise of the internet is paying off.

Shares are a lot cheaper now though.

CAPE, or Shiller PE as it is also known, calculates the current price of shares against average earnings over a period of time, usually 10 years, to smooth out the effects of the economic cycle of boom and bust that can skew the traditional price to earnings ratio that looks at just one year's profits. 

Use the long-term valuation tool that the CAPE ratio provides and there is a stark difference between the dotcom boom-era market and today.

CAPE, as the cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio is known, is a way of looking at a valuation compared to the long-term and judging how cheap or expensive it looks. 

Regular readers will be aware we have written plenty about it in recent times – it’s no magic bullet but it is a good yardstick.

Decent value: The CAPE ratio chart for the FTSE-All Share, in red, shows the UK market is near its cheapest in 40 years and below the long-term median, in green. Decent value: The CAPE ratio chart for the FTSE-All Share, in red, shows the UK market is near its cheapest in 40 years and below the long-term median, in green.

CAPE figures will vary slightly depending on which index you use. The chart above, based on data compiled for us by Hargreaves Lansdown's Laith Khalaf, uses the FTSE All-Share index. 

It shows that at the start of the millennium the UK’s CAPE ratio stood at 29, whereas in January 2015 it stood at 15. The chart also plots the median CAPE ratio going back nearly 40 years to 1976.

The FTSE All-Share is below the median of 19, although it is worth considering that itself is pulled up by the huge boom of the dotcom era and the 1980s spike.

What is perhaps more notable is that if you knock out those spikes, the FTSE All-Share's CAPE ratio has tended to range between about 14 and 22. It is currently near the bottom of that range, so on this measure UK shares are near the cheapest they have been in 40 years

Separate figures compiled by investing firm Research Affiliates based on the MSCI UK index show that at the start of 2015 the UK's CAPE ratio stood at 12. The long-term median level is 14.7, according to its calculations.

Apt: Not only did Prince's 1999 prove popular for Footsie headlines, it also forecast the party ending as 2000 arrived Apt: Not only did Prince's 1999 prove popular for Footsie headlines, it also forecast the party ending as 2000 arrived

Again, judged on that measure, UK shares are not fill your boots cheap but they are cheaper than usual - and certainly not expensive.

Number-crunching by Research Affiliates suggests the UK’s CAPE level should deliver future annual real returns of 5.7 per cent over the next decade.

Of course, that alarmingly precise prediction is unlikely to prove spot on – and low CAPE is no guarantee of future returns.

But the UK scores comparatively well across all stock market measures of value, and that looks promising for a long-term investor, albeit you can be sure there will be some bad times along the way.

My personal view is that the chances of success can be greatly improved by paying attention to the things proven to deliver over time: dividends, costs, value and quality.

Hopefully, the omens are good and it won’t be another 15 years before we write our next Footsie record-high story – because I certainly can’t think of any great songs with 2015 in the title.

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{"channels": ["tvshowbiz", "health", "sciencetech", "news", "femail", "football", "travel_news", "debate", "travel"]}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true}); DM.later('bundle', function(){ if (window.ArticlePage) { new ArticlePage(); } });


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

SIMON LAMBERT: Britain's carmakers are thriving, so does it matter if they aren't British-owned?

By Simon Lambert for the Daily Mail

Published: 06:00 GMT, 19 February 2015 | Updated: 11:07 GMT, 19 February 2015

Britain's carmakers are on a roll, so does it matter that many are not British-owned?

As a car fan and proud supporter of British business, I take great pleasure when we highlight the achievements of our motor industry on This is Money.

Our readers like to read about it too. One of our top stories this week was on Jaguar striking gold with its new XE - now declared a BMW-beater by WhatCar?


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Not so big cat: Jaguar's new XE is designed to take on the BMW 3-Series and rivals Not so big cat: Jaguar's new XE is designed to take on the BMW 3-Series and rivals

If Jaguar has its way, the XE will start muscling some of those ubiquitous 3 Series BMWs off our roads later this year.

In refreshing its image, Jaguar has delivered four of the best looking and driving cars in their respective classes - the XJ, XF, the F-TYPE and now the XE.

The new baby Jaguar is its big hope for making a real crack at the big volumes that it wants to sell. 

The XJ and F-TYPE will always remain niche cars, while the XF has been a huge success, but it is at the more accessible £27,000 mark that the XE starts at where the real win is to be had.

It’s delivered a great looking car that has won plaudits even in a still-to-be-tweaked test format.

I would expect an XE estate and coupe to follow, to stage a proper challenge on BMW, Audi and Mercedes. Jaguar has also got a 4x4 – the slightly oddly-named F-PACE - in development.

A similar story of automotive excellence is being spun at stablemate Land Rover. Its Range Rovers are being joined by an overhauled set of Land Rover models to capitalise on its already considerable global success.

Yet a common complaint is heard when we write about Jaguar Land Rover’s success, or that of Mini, Rolls Royce and Bentley: ‘They aren’t British – they’re foreign-owned.’

Does that matter? I don’t think so. 

These cars are designed, engineered and built in Britain.

21st century craftmanship: The Rolls-Royce Wraith  is one of the world's most desirable cars 21st century craftmanship: The Rolls-Royce Wraith  is one of the world's most desirable cars

Not just a number: The McLaren 650S is a Ferrari-rivalling supercar - made in Woking Not just a number: The McLaren 650S is a Ferrari-rivalling supercar - made in Woking

Car manufacturing hit a seven-year high in the UK last year, as we made 1.5million vehicles, with a new car rolling off a production line every 20 seconds. 

That ranges from the volume production of Nissan, in Sunderland, to the luxury craftsmanship of Rolls Royce, at Goodwood, and the Ferrari-rivalling supercars of McLaren, in Woking. 

There are some gems in the statistics. Nissan's Sunderland plant apparently now makes more cars than the whole of Italy combined - with 500,00 built in 2014. 

Rolls Royce, McLaren and Bentley are all making record numbers of cars - the bulk of them exported.

Jaguar Land Rover was Britain's second biggest carmaker last year, with 449,500 built, and 179,000  worth of the myriad versions of the Mini got their wheels.

It’s not just the carmakers though. Across the board this endeavour supports a fantastic industry making the bits that go into them and specialising in the technology that makes them better.

Of course, it’s a shame our carmakers aren’t still British-owned but we should be proud that many of their cars are among the best in the world.

At a time when we’re trying to encourage manufacturing, engineering excellence and rebalance our economy, this is good news.

Whether it’s a Morgan or a McLaren, or even a Nissan or Toyota, if it’s made in Britain let’s celebrate it. 

window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode: 'autosized-generated-text-under-1r-' + 'row', container: 'taboola-below-main-column', placement: 'wide'}); _taboola.push({flush:true}); var rcShoutCache = '{}'; window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true});

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Bruce Jenner -- Video Shows Bruce Squarely to Blame in 'Violent' Crash

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,


0217-bruce-jenner-crash-scene-infphoto-splash-9
Bruce Jenner
was squarely at fault in the fatal car crash ... so claim people familiar with the MTA video of the crash. 


Law enforcement would not comment on the video, however, others familiar with it tell TMZ it shows the drivers of the other 3 vehicles in the crash did nothing wrong. We're told the video shows the Lexus and the Prius moving at a very slow rate of speed, though it's unclear whether they are accelerating or decelerating. They were in the back of a line of cars stopped for a red light.


As we reported, Bruce told cops at the scene the Lexus driver slammed on her brakes without warning, making it impossible for him to react in time to avoid the crash. We're told the video actually shows the Lexus barely moving -- she did not slam on her brakes -- and Bruce is clearly inattentive, holding his cigarette with one hand and not aware of the traffic in front of him. By the time he realizes he's in peril, he slams on the brakes but it's too late. 


We're told the video shows Bruce hit the Lexus "violently" ... rocketing it into the Hummer, killing the Lexus driver. Our sources say the video shows Bruce was clearly traveling at a significant speed given the magnitude of the crash, although cops believe he was not speeding.


Bruce then continued on and hit the Prius, and we're told that collision occurred at almost the exact time the Lexus hit the Hummer, which is why witnesses say they only heard 2 crashes.


Although the video seems to show Bruce and Bruce alone caused the crash, it was still an accident and some of our law enforcement sources think it's unlikely he'll be charged with vehicular manslaughter because the offense is following too closely, something everyone has done.


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Bruce Jenner -- Cops Just Scored Critical Crash Video

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,


0210_bruce_jenner_accident_scene_SPLASH_2A video has surfaced of the fatal car accident involving Bruce Jenner -- a video taken seconds after impact -- and we've learned it could become a critical piece of evidence for law enforcement investigating the accident. 


Law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. just obtained the video, which shows the immediate aftermath of the crash. Most important, it shows people who witnessed the chain of events that led to the Lexus Bruce hit veering into oncoming traffic and killing the driver.


We're told Sheriff's detectives are on the hunt for the people in the video because, among other things, they might have seen the Prius that was hit by the Lexus. Cops want to know if the Prius was stopped behind a long line of cars waiting for the light to turn green, or whether it illegally stopped for some other purpose.  


We're told the actions of the Prius and Lexus drivers could have a significant impact on Bruce's culpability for the fatal crash.   


And we're told the video shows Bruce was NOT being chased by paparazzi ... something Jenner family sources told us the day of the crash.


08152014_celebrity_car_crashes_footer_v3


www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,

Malcolm Butler -- I GOT MY FREE TRUCK ... Thanks Chevy!

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,


0210_Malcolm-Butler_truck_instagram


Super Bowl hero Malcolm Butler is riding high right now ... 'cause the dude just got himself a brand new FREE TRUCK ... and it's all thanks to Tom Brady.  


Of course, Brady got a Chevy Colorado for being named MVP of the Super Bowl -- but said he wanted to give it to Butler ... who made the game-saving interception. 


Well, Chevy heard Brady loud and clear ... and instead of letting Tom part ways with his prize, they decided to hook Butler up too ... and Tuesday in Massachusetts, Butler finally got his ride!!


"I am ecstatic that Chevrolet has chosen to reward me with a Colorado. It is just another unreal event in what has been an incredible week."


Still no word on what Brady plans to do with his truck. 


0408-stars-cars-car-rides-footer-1

For more sports stories, check out tmzsports.com!

www.inulpoker.com, Agen Poker Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya, Poker dan Domino Terbaik,