At the risk of most of my blogs linking to games or gambling, I think there are some fascinating – albeit rather intricate – relationships between gambling and investment strategies (and can’t resist writing another one). In this blog I seek to join the dots between different ways of describing investment returns, a betting strategy and an apparent paradox.
How people feel about the prospects of risk and reward is important to 'journey planning' in DC schemes. But does an individual's natural aversion to losing money impact their retirement saving?
Some belief is needed in factors other than market exposure to justify choosing a multi-factor strategy over a market-cap weighted one. But how much belief?
If your base case is that interest rates will rise faster than is already priced in, how much should you under-hedge? The answer could be less than you think.
What do inflation-linked pension benefit schemes and Texan cowboys have in common? We look at a source of scheme risk that many trustees may not have considered: limited price indexation risk. This could become increasingly important for trustees as their schemes progress along their de-risking glidepaths.
Mark blogging about the pensions generation game reminded me of a couple of Brucie bonuses that investors should be on the lookout for: the diversification bonus and the rebalancing bonus. Although they're often confused, they're very different prizes.
Are zombie pension schemes a viable option? And if so, how should their investment strategy be set?