Don't take business lessons from Downton Abbey

Lord Grantham: no businessman.

Caution! Don't read on if you haven't watched the first episode of the third series of Downton Abbey

Downton Abbey is normally leisurely viewing, but high-net worth (HNW) ears will have pricked last night at the news that Lord Grantham has invested his fortune in a doomed railway company and faces ruin.

Going from hero to zero – with the inevitable family fallout – is something that keeps even the wealthiest awake. So a quick analysis of Grantham’s mistake may put a few minds at rest today.
   
Diversification is the buzzword of many portfolio managers. Complicated as it sounds, the idea condenses into the simple thought that investing across a series of asset classes, sectors, geographies and maturities achieves the same returns as investing in one stock, but – crucially – with less risk.

The concept is sufficiently appealing that some HNWs go overboard on it though. Breaking their fortunes into a thousand pieces after liquidity events, they unknowingly diversify themselves into mediocrity and ensure that, while safe, their money won’t grow at the rate required to counter inflation, family spending or the taxman.

A balance therefore needs to be struck, and Lord Grantham would have done well to listen to the advice of Murray, his money manager, in this department.

Academics currently posit that the vast majority of diversification benefits can be achieved with 12 to 18 holdings. This represents a happy balance between, at one end, concentrated investment in the few first class opportunities that come our way in a lifetime, and, at the other, the don’t-put-your-eggs-in-one-basket mentality.

What it comes down to is that when you are worth hundreds of millions – as Lord Grantham was – the battle is not so much investment management as risk management.

Wealth preservation is the Holy Grail, and the fallout of failing to achieve it will be graphically laid out in Julian Fellowes' third season.

This article first appeared in Spear's.

The cast of Downton Abbey. Photograph, Getty Images.

Freddy Barker writes for Spear's.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's Eurosceptics should steer clear of loaded language

Phrases such as "wholesale importation" leave the impression Labour will not speak for migrant workers.

Nothing reflects Britain’s division over Brexit than the Labour party. Do we want soft or hard Brexit? What do we prioritise? The fractures within the party’s ranks is a portrait of the divisions splintering the country.

Labour’s ambiguity over Brexit helped it in the general election in appealing to everyone. It convinced Remain voters that they could hold the Tories to account while promising the Leave voters that the referendum decision would be respected. But now clarity is needed. 

The Labour leadership seems to be angling for a hard Brexit, wishing to leave the single market and customs union on the grounds that this honours the wishes of the 52 per cent. Ironically, they are at odds with everyone in this situation, from the general public – who favour access to single market over immigration controls – to a poll in LabourList showing that 72 per cent of readers prioritised inclusion within the single market.

Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm attitude to the EU is well documented. If the Labour Party are serious about their public ownership plans for the railways and energy, it’s likely they envision it being made difficult within the EU because of directives which create competition between the state and the private sector. There are unexplored alternatives to this, as seen in Germany and Italy where private companies are made and run the industries with the states acting as the major shareholders of the company. However it’s unlikely to see the hard left ever accepting this, given its disdain for both the private sector and the idea of it interacting with the state to deliver services.

But this is not all that should trouble progressives regarding the Labour leadership’s stance on Brexit. During a recent Andrew Marr programme in which he appeared on, Corbyn claimed that mass immigration had been used to denigrate the conditions for British workers, saying that there was a “wholesale importation” of workers from parts of Europe which would then undermine the rights of British workers. It’s an argument that has been regurgitated by British politicians consistently in recent years – but from the right, not the left.

The idea that migrants are taking British jobs and depressing wages does not hold up to evidence at all. The London School of Economics carried out a research which illustrated increases in migration from the EU did not result in depression of British wages. That’s not to suggest that wages have not stagnated, but rather the trend is linked to the financial crash in 2008, rather than migration. Corbyn’s defenders insist that there were no deliberate racist overtones in his argument, and that the villains are employers deliberately taking advantage of an easily exploited labour market. But the manner in which Corbyn framed his speech was worrying.

The reason for this is that Brexit has created an unbelievable sense of uncertainty, insecurity and fear amongst migrants. Their position in society is now being contested by politicians with different stakes in society to them. Xenophobic abuse – legitimised as an acceptable part of political discourse by Brexit – has been climbing swiftly. Immigrants are seen as threats to British jobs and that is a narrative consistently drummed out – not just since last year but for possibly the past decade.

This is not to say that Labour should not address how some employers might seek to cut costs by hiring foreign workers on a cheap rate. But phrases such as “wholesale importation” or even using the heavily demonised “mass migration” simply sketches the idea that Labour are swinging towards the hard Brexit voters, and in doing so leaving migrant workers to be defended by no one. If the intended idea was to castigate employers, it simply entrenched the idea of immigration as a problem. Rather than bringing British and migrant workers together, you know with that whole “workers of the world unite” idea, Corbyn’s framing of the argument keeps them pitted against each other.

If Brexit has shown us anything it’s that language matters in politics in how it transmits its message to people. Slogans such as “take back control” were attacks on multiculturalism and immigration, stoking white nationalism, even if the Leave campaign insisted it wasn’t about that. Likewise, Corbyn might insist it wasn’t about migrants, but his message sounded a lot like he was blaming freedom of movement for the suppression of wage growth in Britain.

Needless to say, Labour need a rethink on what kind of Brexit it pursues.