You Can’t Halt Progress

Good morning all,

A month is a long time in finance, so it appears. From a year-to-date low of 4982 on the 7th April 2025, the US market now finds itself on a 5687 valuation, not a million miles off the 2025 starting position of 5881.

In other words, we’ve had a 14.15% uplift since the 7th April, and the main American market (S&P 500) is currently 3.31% down year-to-date (as of the 5th May 2025). The European markets are actually going very well; a very fine example of why diversification is the only free lunch in investing.

Have you heard much about said uplift? Has it dominated the front pages of every newspaper, and you’ve struggled to find your favourite listening material amidst a sea of “emergency” market podcasts? No, you have not. We’ve heard the square root of hee-haw (a Scots unit of measurement to denote something extremely small), comparatively.

Anyway, it is what it is, and we move on.

With the wider blog, I am going a little off-piste today as I give you my tuppence-worth on a really interesting debate that was released last month. It’s between entrepreneur Daniel Priestley and economist Gary Stevenson. We’ll come on to that a little later.

There’s a rebellion of sorts against the new pension rules that are due to be introduced in 2027, and my goodness, a cracker of a reference in the Optimism Prism today.

Enjoy!

Empowerment versus Defeatism

The Diary of a CEO is a podcast run by Steven Barlett, and (I think) the most listened-to in the UK. It’s certainly up there.

I’ve listened to a handful of episodes, and will generally pick out ones where I’m attracted to the quality of the guest or it’s a subject I’m interested in.

As a quick side note, there was an episode with a former Mafia boss that was a riveting listen.

In my view, the podcast has sort of veered off it’s original aim but every now and again it draws me back in. As it did with this episode.

I hadn’t really heard of Daniel Priestley before, and I had no idea who Gary Stevenson was. A peer put me on to it.

Anyway, it was really illuminating – it’s linked here if you want to listen to it.

It’s a frustrating listen at times; Stevenson interrupts constantly rendering the “debate” hard to follow. The idea was that each would present their theories regarding boosting the overall wealth of the nation and the financial security and opportunities of individuals.

Priestley approaches this from the pro-entrepreneurial standpoint, espousing the ability of individuals to take control and positively influence their lives and, naturally, wider society. Stevenson argues that to truly combat wealth inequality, we should focus more on aggressive taxation and redistribution. 

In other words, you could paint it as an old-school right versus left economic debate. My brain is humming warnings at me here. Don’t worry, I’m not going to go down a political rabbit hole.

It was a long podcast, and I’m conscious of your time, so I’ll keep it brief. I was somewhat irked that such an influential economist (Stevenson has a large social media following and regularly appears on the BBC) had such a fundamentally inaccurate grasp of the basics of the tax system. Many times he confused accumulated assets as income and had little appreciation of the global mobility of high-net-worth individuals. I found the overall tone of his approach defeatist, as if there was little one could do to affect one’s environment and we should simply accept what we have.

Stevenson also referenced wealth taxes as a principle without, I would suggest, an understanding that more often that not, such taxes raise a paltry amount of the expected amount.

Conversely, Priestley argues for just the opposite. Taking individual control, working hard & smart, and highlighting the vast contribution that high-earners and wealthy individuals already make to the UK tax system. His was a far more optimistic approach that resonated with me.

As one very quick example, anyone in the UK can now open a company online for as little as £40. Yes, it’s risky if you decide to go “out on your own”, but we’re so fortunate to be able to do that. To have an idea and simply go for it. In my opinion, the UK remains a fantastic place to live and to do business, something that is often lost amongst the online negativity.

Anyway, I’ll hold fire here, but I thought it was worth highlighting – you will find it interesting if nothing else.

Business Update

It has again been some time since I provided a quick snapshot of the business. I don’t know if it’s interesting or not, but tis’ here, nonetheless.

As of the start of May, the business looks after 45 families. The normal measure in this world is to quote the assets that a firm advises upon, presumably to make oneself sound very important indeed, thank-you-very-much. I am less interested in that and instead measure myself against the number of people/families that I am working with.

I expect the figure will rise to 48 (ish) within the next few months, and I would extend a heartful thank you to each and every one of you. As always, your business – and more importantly, your trust – is never taken for granted.

This is no secret, as I mention it frequently, but I personally have a clear limit as to how many families I intend to work with. The rationale here should be somewhat obvious, in that if I take on too many families it won’t work for anyone. It’s not possible to do the below properly for an excess number of families:

I won’t say that the firm will never hire more advisers and grow – perhaps one day – but in the event that we do, all of those advisers will have a similar limit as to the families that they work with. I have worked differently before and I shan’t be doing that again.

And perhaps one of those questions that you fine people are all too polite to ask, but I am here for the long haul. Whilst I receive – like most/all planning firms – random emails from consultants encouraging me to sell my practice for X, I have no interest. I’m only 36, genuinely enjoy this, and couldn’t see myself doing anything else any time soon.

And some of the consolidators throwing their dineros around are finding themselves in water of an ever-increasing temperature.

Unless of course the lottery numbers come up and I win gazillions, in which case of course I’m offski. Such a win would however be a spectacular shock to me, given I haven’t played the lottery in around ten years.

2027 Is That Bit Closer

As I’ve noted, before, there are very significant changes coming in regarding pension rules in April 2027. The short version is the pensions will be included within the estate from this time period on, whereas previously they were excluded.

There are some inherent dangers here. Principally amongst them is the threat of double taxation on pensions over the age 75. It won’t surprise you to hear me say that proper planning is vital in this regard.

All of that said, it might not be done and dusted. Whilst I think the general rules will come in as indicated, I do expect some editing of the detail – hopefully avoiding the aforementioned double taxation threat.

Some of the big players in this arena are making their feelings clear.

Optimism Prism

Your monthly dose of the good stuff:

This has to be one of the coolest things humans have ever done

World’s First “Nonstop Beating Heart” Transplant

The Downward Trends in Child Mortality

Recommendations

• A repeat recommendation here. I find the Morning Brew newsletter a well-curated and relevant mid-morning drop in the inbox.

• A brief film for you, We Don’t Deserve Dogs. 

• A true game for the ages the other night there with Barcelona vs Inter Milan. Magical viewing. You’re never convincing me that was a penalty - 10 years ago that tackle was being shown to defenders as an example of perfection.

• And finally, compliance have added in a new risk warning! The excitement of it all is too much sometimes; be still thy beating heart.

That’s us for this month!  

 All the best,

Andy

The compliance bit:

• This newsletter is for information purposes and does not constitute financial advice, which should be based on your individual circumstances.

• Past performance is used as a guide only; it is no guarantee of future performance.

• Investing in shares should be regarded as a long-term investment and should fit in with your overall attitude to risk and financial circumstances.

• The value of investments and any income from them can fall as well as rise. You may not get back the full amount invested.

• Levels and bases of, and reliefs from, taxation are subject to change and their value will depend upon personal circumstances. Taxation and pension legislation may change in the future.