Do ESG funds matter?

What is ESG?

 

ESG stand for Environmental, Social and Governance, and it’s an attempt by the industry to offer ethical funds. But does this matter, and does it work?

 

The Environmental part measures things like the company’s carbon footprint, their treatment of animals, their energy use and their sourcing of raw materials.

 

The Social part covers their adherence to health and safety legislation in the workplace, whether they partner with the local community, their support of charities.

 

The Governance bit is about issues like gender balance on their board of directors, following good practices like separating the Chairman and CEO roles, their use of political donations and there adherence to best accounting and reporting practices.

 

Lots of investors would prefer to own ethical companies, and ESG funds are the industry’s response to consumer demand. An ESG fund will use a benchmark provider to give ratings on characteristics of a company’s operation, and poor-scoring companies will be excluded from the fund.

 

Exclusions

 

One problem with this is that not everyone has the same idea on what constitutes bad behaviour. While many investors would prefer not to own tobacco companies, the position of alcoholic drinks companies is less clear. At what point do we decide a product is harmful - if used at all, or if used in moderation?

 

The difficulty comes when we are excluding otherwise “good” companies for what could be considered flimsy reasons. Tesla generally has a reputation for being a “good” company on an ethical mission, trying to accelerate the transition to clean transport. But one benchmark provider recently excluded them on the basis of their poor staff relations.

 

So there is certainly a question mark on interpretation. Your ideas of what fits your ethics are unlikely to be a perfect match with those of the people curating an ESG fund.

 

Buying not Owning

 

It turns out that your ownership choices don’t impact the behaviour of companies anything like so much as your buying choices.

 

If you boycott British American Tobacco and refuse to own their shares, someone else will own them instead. Your boycott doesn’t really have an impact on them. If, on the other hand, you don’t buy their products, this dent in sales (when take together with everyone else’s action) Is keenly felt and will cause the management to pivot to trying to offer something which pleases the market and causes them to open their wallets.

 

In conclusion

 

It doesn’t really matter whether you choose an ESG fund or not. If it pleases you, then it probably won’t harm your returns greatly, and you should go with your conscience.

 

There will be some impact, however. You’re excluding some of the most profitable brands from your portfolio. According to a comment on the most recent course of the Rebel Finance School, one popular fund excludes seven out of the ten largest UK companies.

 

And of course the curators of ESG funds will charge you a little bit for their work, meaning that an “ethical” fund may well be slightly more expensive.

 

You will have a greater impact with your spending choices than by buying an ESG fund.

 

What If I Don't Want To Retire?

The media love to find the chinks in the armour of anything, and one way in which they like to criticise the FIRE movement is to attack the premise of someone wanting to retire early.

 

They’ll typically characterise this as someone behaving as though they are old before their time; giving up on life and spending their days sitting by the fire watching re-runs of old sitcoms on tv.

 

They deliberately miss the point in two major ways.

 

You don’t have to retire if you’re having fun

 

Firstly, there’s no need to retire. If your work brings you fulfilment and is the best way to spend your days to give you a happy life, then absolutely there is no need to retire. Some of us do have worthwhile and enjoyable careers.

 

To be fair, a lot more of us have jobs where we reluctantly turn in on a Monday morning, with not much joy from the job itself, although we may quite like the people.

 

The critical thing which FIRE offers is freedom. Freedom to make a conscious choice about how you enjoy spending your days. It means that if work ceases to be enjoyable - say your lovely manager leaves and you are no longer shielded from the grouch that your boss reported to - you’ll have the means to tell them where to stick it. Or that you have the freedom to get the balance right - by going part-time or buying extra leave, to still keep the work enjoyable whilst also getting to do the things you want to do outside of work.

 

Even before you reach your FI milestone and you simply have a good chunk of funds invested, you’ll find that it gives you a sense of freedom and confidence. The prospect of redundancy is no longer daunting when you have ten years of living costs under your belt. You can leave a job which turns sour, with the certainty that, if it takes you a year or two to find another job that you like, you won’t run out of money.

 

A different retirement

 

The second way in which the critical media miss the point is in the way they portray retirement. It’s true that in traditional retirement a lot of people are exhausted from a lifetime of work, they are older and so have health problems, and lack the fitness and energy to set about ticking items off an extensive bucket list.

 

What FIRE offers, then, is particularly special. We’re talking about getting some extra years of freedom before all of that happens. A more youthful retirement when the prospect of long-haul flights is not so daunting. This retirement can mean going backpacking across Asia, seeing the sights of the high Arctic, or trekking to see the lost cities of the Incas.

 

The media also like to play on our fears. For many people their job is a useful anchor in their life, it sets a routine of the days and for as long as they can remember it has been there making the decision for them of what to do today. For other people it brings status - an automatic understanding of where they stand in the pecking order of their personal world. We are tribal animals, and giving up our work tribe feels traumatic to some people.

 

It’s true that when you retire, you’ll lose some of your tribe. Small interactions with former colleagues will be missing from your day, and for your mental health you should have a plan for how you want to fill your days.

 

Pursuit of FI is a goal I’d recommend to anyone. It puts you in a position of strength and security. But before you actually make the decision to retire, I’d make some plans for what you want to achieve and how you will put this bonus time to good use.

 

The Wonderful World Of Pensions

Retirement saving is complicated, and I’m going to attempt to break it down simply.

 

We have a State Pension. You’ll get it when you’re nearly 70, you need to make sure you’ve got a good record of National Insurance contributions, but other than that, I’m not going to talk about it here.

 

Then we have your work pension, or a personal pension, the ways you try to save for an upgraded retirement. There are two flavours of these. The first one used to to be known as Final Salary pensions, they’re now called Defined Benefit pensions. Not many people get them any more, usually just public sector workers like teachers and nurses. They’re great for you, because the pension scheme takes on the risk and guarantees you a level of payout.

 

The other type is a Defined Contribution pension. This means you don’t have anyone making you a guarantee of the income you’ll get, instead you build up a savings pot and can then use it to either buy an “annuity” or just leave it invested and draw down some income from it regularly in retirement.

 

The Annuity is a product you buy from something akin to a life insurance company. If you give them your £100k pot, they’ll give you a pension of £x per month until you die. Or a version that’s index linked to rise with prices, or a version which will also pay out to your spouse after you die.

 

Not many people buy annuities any more, as the payout rates have been comparing badly to just continuing to invest for yourself and drawing down some of the pot for income.

 

Confusingly, many people say “pension” when they mean “annuity”. Strictly speaking your pension is the savings pot you’ve built up.

 

For the rest of this article I’m talking about Defined Contribution pensions as that’s what you’ll meet when you look at SIPPs and workplace pensions.

 

SIPPs are Self Invested Personal Pensions. They’re the ones you set up for yourself using an investing platform.

 

The great thing about pensions is that the government will add your income tax back in to match any contribution you make. So if you contribute £100, they’ll add £25.

 

Higher rate or additional rate taxpayers will actually have paid more in tax. The government will give you that extra money back (via your Self Assessment tax return, or if you claim it), but they won’t actually add it into your pension. If you want the extra to go in there, you have to put it in yourself and then the taxman will effectively reimburse you later.

 

Free Money!

 

This £25 top-up is what we mean when we talk about Free Money. It’s a big incentive to invest in your retirement, and it suits the government to encourage this as it gets us taking care of our own futures and makes us less of a problem for the state.

 

The way this actually works is, you put in £100 to your pension, and about six weeks later the £25 automatically arrives. Your pension provider will have reported the contribution to HMRC in the background, to make the claim, but you don’t have to do anything.

 

Your work pensions gets you even more free money. Your employer is obliged to put in 3% of your salary, and you’re obliged to put in 5%, making 8% total contribution. This is all done before tax, so your 25% bonus is already in there.

 

Some employers will voluntarily match you on higher contributions, and you should try to accept all of this free money that you can.

 

Finally there is something called Salary Sacrifice. This is a dodge which lets your employer reduce your salary and instead make an extra large contribution to your pension. This happens before National Insurance is taken, and because there are both Employer and Employee bits of NI paid, that benefits both you and the employer.

 

Salary Sacrifice also has some spinoff benefits. Because it’s lowering your salary, it may lower it below say the £50k higher rate tax band, and mean you qualify for child benefit and childcare costs.

 

What’s It Invested In?

 

A problem with personal pensions has been that there are rip-off companies out there who’ll burn through your contributions with high fees, if allowed. This is why we have generations of people who are jaded on the whole topic of pensions, having paid in and seen little return.

 

One way to justify high fees is to create complexity, and the pension industry is great at this. They’ll ask you about risk, and you’ll say no I don’t like risk; they’ll use this to justify putting you in a carefully managed (think fees here) bundle of investments designed not to make a loss. Only, that safety means that they’re often designed not to make much profit either. The combination of high fees and low performance means that if you leave pension companies to run things, they’ll end up making money and you won’t.

 

To fix this I have two suggestions for you.

 

1) Look at your work pension in terms of fees and performance. Try to switch down to lower fee funds. And try to switch to better performing funds. These are usually the same thing, as the best performance in the long-term is usually a passive global index tracking fund, and these should have lower fees than actively managed funds.

 

2) If your work pension has no good options, try to switch the money out of there and into somewhere with lower fees and better performance (ie with index funds available). This can be difficult. If the platform fee is high, and you need to continue with the pension as the only way to get that free money carrying on, your only recourse would be to talk to your employer and persuade them to use a different provider or to pay into your own SIPP.

 

Otherwise, you may be able to do a Partial Transfer, sweeping the money across to your own SIPP once a year or so. Many pension companies don’t allow this, as it’s taking away money that’s making them a profit.

 

My rule of thumb on fees is: more than 0.5% annual fees is getting expensive. That’s a combination of platform fee, management fee, fund fee, and perhaps you’re also suffering advisor fees. As a benchmark, Vanguard will be in the region of 0.35%.

 

If you are contributing your own money to a SIPP, in the same way look for low fees and good choice of investments. See my article on Platforms & Funds for my ideas on this.

 

When You Retire

 

One of the limitations of a pension is you can only get at it later in life. Think 60. It’s actually hard to me more accurate than that, because the government keeps moving the goalposts. They are currently moving the State Pension age back from 67 to 68, 69, or who knows where. And the personal pension access age is similarly in flux - they have suggested that it will track 10 years ahead of State Pension age, but even this hasn’t been set in stone.

 

If you’re planning on stopping work before 60ish, consider also building a bridge fund using an ISA.

 

When you are old enough and decide to start pulling income from your personal pension, you can have 25% of your pot tax-free and then the rest is subject to income tax.

 

Currently this means that you can treat this in either of two ways. You can take 25% as a tax-free lump sum, and the other 75% can be drawn in stages, where it wil be fully treated as income for income tax purposes. That means you’d get the first £12,570 each year tax-free and then be charged 20% income tax on the rest that you draw in that tax year.

 

The other way is to take your tax-free element as a portion of each withdrawal. That would mean you can have £16,760 tax-free each year, with any further withdrawals again paying 20% tax. And go above £50k in withdrawals and they’re taxed at 40%.

 

You are free in this situation to withdraw whatever you like, and if your portfolio runs dry then so be it. In reality you’d try to show restraint and use something like the 4% rule.

 

How Safe Is The 4% Rule?

The essence of the so-called 4% Rule is that you can safely withdraw 4% of your invested funds each year, indefinitely. How did we arrive at that figure, and why is it the best figure to use?

 

The 4% Rule  originally comes from a piece of research known as the Trinity Study, conducted in 1998 by three professors at Trinity University in Texas. They were trying to determine a Safe Withdrawal Rate for retirement portfolios, and looked at various mixes of stocks and bonds, over various time periods.

 

Back then there was a widespread assumption that you would enter retirement with a portfolio made up of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, due to bonds not being volatile in market crashes in the same way as stocks, and thus cushioning the fall in a portfolio. Since then they have fallen out of fashion somewhat, because we have realised the drag they cause on overall returns, and the problem that in some financial upsets they don’t in fact work as hoped - sometimes they fail to cushion the impact.

 

By studying past market behaviour, we know that a 4% withdrawal rate for a pure stocks portfolio is very safe, but it will be very prone to rises and falls with volatility. This leaves us exposed to something know by the complicated name of Sequence Of Returns Risk.

 

Sequence Risk, for short, means the risk that you encounter a market crash during the early years of your retirement. Your portfolio total will be lower, so that when you take out a given amount in pounds to cover your spending needs, you have withdrawn at a higher rate than 4%. You’ve made a bigger dent in your portfolio. If this downturn continues for months or years, there will be less in your portfolio to bounce back up once prices recover. You’d have a permanently reduced pot which may then not survive for the rest of your life.

 

There are a few ways of trying to deal with Sequence Risk. The traditional way was to include some bonds in your portfolio. The downside to this is that they produce less return, even in the good years, and so you’d need a bigger portfolio in the first place - you’d work for longer.

 

Or you could start your retirement with a cash buffer on top of your portfolio. If you had two years worth of cash to spend at the start, your portfolio would have two years to grow before you made any withdrawals. Normal years have healthy growth well in excess of 4%; your portfolio would be bigger and so when you began making withdrawals they would be lower as a percentage.

 

Or you could suck it and see. If your first years of retirement are all good years, or even average years, then you’re in much better shape. Your portfolio has grown ahead of your predictions and a downturn should only drag it back to where you began. The danger here is, what if your first years aren’t good years? The solution here is to be prepared to reduce some of your spending if there’s a crash. That would keep your effective withdrawal rate down and leave more in the pot to recover when the recovery comes.

 

This last one is how people really behave during market crashes, so as a strategy it has the advantage of being aligned with human psychology.

 

My approach is to adopt both the cash buffer and the drawdown-reduction methods. A third of my planned spending, during the early years of retirement, is earmarked for travel. In the event of a moderate downturn (say up to 10% reduction from the high point) I’ll reduce this spending by half. In a more serious downturn, a dip of more than 10%, I’ll halt this spending.

 

Using such a Sequence Risk mitigation strategy means I can retire on schedule; the alternative would be to work for longer, probably unnecessarily.

 

Coming back to the original question of how safe 4% is, there is a handy online tool called FIREcalc. It will let you backtest your retirement plan against historical date from the US stock markets. It uses data from the past 150 years or so, and looks at how your portfolio would have fared if you had retired in any given past year and its subsequent ups and downs. It will give you results both in the form of a very busy chart showing each of those retirement years, and a numerical figure - how many scenarios were successful. By that they mean, did the portfolio stay above zero until you died.

 

A 100% stocks portfolio over a 30 year period would have a success rate of 93.5%.

 

That’s before you take any measures like drawdown reduction  during a downturn, or using a cash buffer. They should be enough to ensure success, right?

 

We don’t know. The future may behave differently to the past. We may encounter more extreme events than our forebears did.

 

This seems unlikely. Governments have, if anything, become more adept at understanding how the various levers they can apply will impact the economy. We make fewer dumb mistakes now.

 

The most extreme event of the past is probably the 1929 Wall Street Crash and subsequent Great Depression. A steep fall in stock prices, lasting for a long time. Most crashes are brief fluctuations by comparison. If you’ve played with FIREcalc to any degree, you’ll have noticed how hard it is to move your portfolio from 98% success up to a full 100% success - this is because of these very rare but very extreme events.

 

We have no guarantees that a portfolio will survive meeting such a deep crash, sustained for such a long time. And I’d argue that it’s probably not worth trying to. Surely it’s not worth working for an extra five years now, to build a fully bullet-proof portfolio, out of fear that you will be unlucky enough to hit a once-in-a-century crash in those early years of your retirement before your portfolio has grown an excess. I’d argue that it is better to mitigate that risk by reducing your spending if the worst happens, or by defending your portfolio from too much withdrawal in some other way, such as taking on some part-time work if a bad crisis hits.

 

There are plenty of people who argue that 4% is too cautious. They point out that in all probability a withdrawal rate of 5% or 6% will be just fine.

 

Just the same, we all worry about running out of money. Other people plan for a 3.5% withdrawal, to be extra safe. The risk to doing this, and more extreme withdrawal rates such as 2%, is that we sacrifice time. Time when we could be retired and enjoying life more than being at work. The FIRE movement is very focused on having your freedom whilst you are younger and in better health.

 

The withdrawal rate you choose to target is up to you. Most people agree that 4% is about right.

 

Frugalise Your Savings Rate - And Reduce Your Target

If you’ve made the decision to sort your finances out and begin on the FIRE path, you’ll have realised that in order to make some progress you need to find a way to feed the investing beast.

 

It’s easy to do a little. Most of us can, in a fit of enthusiasm, set up a direct debit for £100 a month without too much trouble. We can also look at optimising our work pension by switching funds or possibly providers. Then we hit a wall - we’ve made a start but it’s going to be tough to scale things up to a decent speed.

 

The problem is that most of us quite simply live to our means. We enjoy a lifestyle to match our income, and habits like that are hard to break. We reach this point by sleepwalking from a frugal kid who is used to having little money, up the career ladder with increasing earning power, and never really stop to think about spending priorities. Life gets in the way, with expensive things like cars and houses to pay for, and we’re often pushing ourselves so hard that we spend the remaining money on treats and conveniences. Spending habits develop.

 

There are two ways to look at cutting your spending. You can be unhappy and look upon it as giving stuff up. Or you can adopt the Mr Money Mustache viewpoint and embrace the frugality, find the positive in a simpler life where you don’t derive your pleasure from spending money.

 

There is in fact a sound basis for this viewpoint. Research shows that each additional pound you spend on those treats and conveniences tends to bring you less happiness than the pound before. So this may not be so bad after all - we’re only going to be cutting the last spending, the bit which adds the least happiness!

 

Do a little audit of your spending, to see where your money actually goes. I’ve tried to brainstorm a list of possible spends and put them into categories, but I’ve undoubtedly missed some:

 

Home

  • Mortgage or rent
  • Utilities
  • Insurances
  • Cleaners / Gardeners / Window cleaners / Services
  • Repairs / Redecoration
  • Furnishings / Carpets / Beds

 

Transport

  • Bus / train fares
  • Car loan
  • Car insurance, MOT, servicing, repairs, fuel
  • Parking fees
  • Car washes

 

Family

  • Childcare
  • Gifts
  • Pocket money
  • Schools fees
  • After school clubs
  • School trips

 

Food & Drink

  • Groceries
  • Eating out
  • Takeaway food
  • Drinks out
  • Subscriptions

 

Other Shopping

  • Clothes / Footwear
  • Glasses / Contact lenses /
  • Makeup / jewellery

 

Entertainment

  • TV Licence
  • Streaming subscriptions
  • Gaming subscriptions
  • Magazines & newspapers
  • Mobile phone / other gadgets
  • Computer / laptop
  • Cinema
  • Days out

 

Holidays

  • Weekends away / short breaks
  • UK holidays
  • Foreign holidays

 

Hobbies

  • Gambling

 

Medical

  • Dentist
  • Optician
  • Private healthcare
  • Osteopath / Chiropractor / Therapies

 

Debt repayments and interest

 

Other

 

Try to list all your spending and put each item under the nearest suitable heading. Use this to get a sense of where your money is going, which categories take up the most money. Then think about which you could cut without too much pain. If you’re considering making more severe cuts, try to balance this is looking at the payoff - you could read my article on the 10 year return of a bacon butty for this.

 

Obviously the aim of the exercise is to see what money you could free up for your investing goal.

 

If the resulting sum is low, don’t be disheartened. Not all spending commitments last forever. The pain of your mortgage payment will reduce over the years as inflation has an impact - your wages should go up with inflation, while the amount of your outstanding loan diminishes in real terms. Kids leave home and eventually start paying their own way. These changes will leave you more money to invest later on.

 

Identifying savings in each category can be hard. Reducing the fuel cost of your commute is definitely a longer term goal; most of us would find it hard to relocate to a job closer to home instantly.


The great news is that by making this effort, you get rewarded twice! As well as investing more, your new frugal ways have reduced your spending. This means that your target has been reduced by 25 times the savings. Your smaller goal will be a lot quicker to reach.

 

Measure your Savings Rate before and after this process, to impress yourself with the impact you’ve made. Your Savings Rate is just the percentage of your take home pay that you are saving. If you were at 10%, aim for 20%. If you were at 40%, aim for 50%. Any improvement is useful. And for added motivation, look at fireplanner to see how the change will speed up your progress to FI.