Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Answer by Hauke Hillebrandt8
0
0

The following is not financial advice. 

Sam Bowman who's EA adjacent has written about this. 

Wise actually has a bank account that you can invest in an index for UK customers only w/ 0.5% fees.

Note that investing in the stock market is generally seen as riskier than holding a major country's currency.

Also inflation is unusually high and markets expect it to come down and currencies are unusually volatile currently:

"Rock-bottom inflation and interest rates over the past decade helped smother swings in exchange rates. Deutsche Bank’s cvix index, a gauge of forex volatility, has been above its current level more than 90% of the time over the past 20 years. By contrast, the vix, which measures expected volatility for America’s s&p 500 index of stocks and is often used as a measure of overall market sentiment, has so far spent October at roughly its long-term average." [src]

Reply
See in context
by David King
1 min read6 answers 1

8

CommunityInvestingPersonal financePractical
Frontpage

Currrently I have runway in a savings account with Lloyds, which earns basically no interest at 0.2%. Should I invest it instead? 

Inflation in the UK is high at around 9%, so if my understanding is correct this means my runway is decreasing in purchasing power by 9% a year, which would be £900 per year for £10,000 of runway.

I have a Vanguard Target Retirement investment fund, following advice in I Will Teach You To Be Rich, which I put money into each month. Would it be sensible to put all my runway in here? It seems this might be risky, especially given that the value of the fund can go up and down, and the point of runway is to provide security.

I'm aware of online savings accounts such as Marcus which have slightly higher interest of 1.3%. Currently I kept my runway in Lloyds to make it easier to transfer money in / out of it from my current account.

For context, I live in the UK.

8

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


6 Answers sorted by
Top

Michael_Wulfsohn

8
0
0

The following is based on my experience advising institutional investors - hope it's helpful! But don't make decisions based solely on this. Better to get properly informed and tailored advice.

You're asking how much risk to take in your runway portfolio. Currently you're taking no risk.

It makes sense to take risk if your investment horizon is long enough. Retirement savings are very long-term, so they can afford to be invested in risky, growth-seeking assets like shares. 

To give my intuition on the numbers, if your runway is intended to be mostly spent in the next 6 months, a bank account is a good option. If you have a more than a year or two to invest, it would be typical to start taking some risk in the portfolio, e.g. with a share allocation. Not with 100% of your portfolio, but maybe 20% or 30%. If investing for longer than 10 years, you could put 70% or more in risky growth-seeking assets.

The above assumes your existing retirement savings are off limits if you run out of runway cash. There is also an implicit assumption about your risk aversion. On that matter, your risk aversion should be applied to the aggregate of all your assets, including your startup itself which is a significant source of uncertainty.

Hauke Hillebrandt

8
0
0

The following is not financial advice. 

Sam Bowman who's EA adjacent has written about this. 

Wise actually has a bank account that you can invest in an index for UK customers only w/ 0.5% fees.

Note that investing in the stock market is generally seen as riskier than holding a major country's currency.

Also inflation is unusually high and markets expect it to come down and currencies are unusually volatile currently:

"Rock-bottom inflation and interest rates over the past decade helped smother swings in exchange rates. Deutsche Bank’s cvix index, a gauge of forex volatility, has been above its current level more than 90% of the time over the past 20 years. By contrast, the vix, which measures expected volatility for America’s s&p 500 index of stocks and is often used as a measure of overall market sentiment, has so far spent October at roughly its long-term average." [src]

MichaelDickens

4
0
0

If you want to take as little risk as possible, you're right that cash is not the safest investment because it's vulnerable to inflation. It would be safer on a real basis to invest in something like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which is 25% cash, 25% stocks, 25% Treasury bonds, 25% gold. Just make sure your investments are liquid enough that you can sell them quickly if you need to.

Derek

2
0
0

If you are under 40 and might want to spend the money on a first property costing <450k, you could consider a Lifetime ISA (either cash or stocks & shares):

https://www.gov.uk/lifetime-isa https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/lifetime-isas/

Derek1
0
0

There are also easy-access savings accounts giving a bit more than 1.3%: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-accounts-best-interest/

Reply

james++

-1
0
0

Not financial advice. It's hard to give a specific recommendation since it depends on details of your personal situation and how risk averse you are. As a general rule, if your runway falling by 20% would still leave you with adequate runway (as defined by you), then investing it would likely be best for your long term wealth.

As you suggest, an index fund would be a very sensible, lower variance option.

MichaelDickens12
0
0

IMO you should be prepared for the stock market to fall 50%.

Reply
Comments1
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
David King1
0
0

thank you all for your replies! sorry for my slow reply - I had my notifications set wrong on the forum so missed this at the time. I'm currently taking a career break and living off my runway, so having it in a bank account is fine for now. your advice may prove useful in the future.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Community
97
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
18
EA Organization Updates: April 2025
2 authors
· · 10m read
0
0
View more