If you see Sid, tell him not to bother. Rather than buying shares, as the vintage advertising slogan encouraged people to do when British Gas was privatised in 1986, these days they are more likely to be snapping up cryptocurrency or lottery tickets.
Data this week from the Office for National Statistics showed that the proportion of UK shares held by individual UK residents fell to 10.8% last year, close to an all-time low.
While it is possible to quibble with what the numbers tell us – the London market has grown so that so-called retail investors still account for a slightly greater value of shares compared to last time the survey was carried out – the decades-long direction of travel is clear. If people have spare cash, they are not sticking it in stocks.
Why not? Perhaps there is no spare cash, plus a risk allergy and a fear of the unknown. Culturally, the habit that might have been built by those Thatcher-era privatisations has not stuck. The reasons are well rehearsed by organisations including mine that campaign to reform the public markets so that growing companies can more easily attract investors of all sizes, put their money to work productively and hopefully share the upside.
This topic might seem like an irrelevance as the cost of living crisis lingers. After all, investing in shares is no get-rich-quick scheme. And that’s precisely the point.
I’m not about to dole out financial advice but share ownership can claim to benefit financial wellbeing in the long term because shares tend to outperform property, cash or government debt. The recent rise in interest rates has increased the appeal of cash to some, even though savings accounts haven’t offered deals that kept pace with inflation.
Many savers are simply not tempted to dabble, however. On average, more than double the amount is paid into cash ISAs every year compared to stocks and shares ISAs.
Risk plays a part because shares can go down in value too. The debate rages over how much jeopardy consumers should be exposed to. The new City minister, Bim Afolami, is no fan of having “the safest graveyard”.
Where there is financial benefit in share ownership, there can be social benefit also. It is not too much to claim that shares enable people to feel connected to the world around them. That’s useful in an era where mistrust of many institutions persists.
The two million people in the UK who own a sliver of their company through a workplace share saving scheme are thought to have higher morale and generate better output than otherwise. Handy for employers as the war for talent rages, but more needs to be done to simplify these schemes so they are more widely adopted.
For investing beyond the workplace, it is worth bearing in mind that some of the best City fund managers are guided by basic instincts. If a product tastes good, buy the shares, some say. If you can’t understand the business model, don’t.
That’s why newcomers flock to invest in Tesla or Apple but they might easily try smaller brands they love. For instance, any fans of W7 cosmetics that bought a piece of owner Warpaint London when it went public in 2016 have profited handsomely.
It’s a question of explaining better the crop of companies that is out there, as well demystifying the investment process. Individual investors deserve parity with pension funds when it comes to taking part in company fundraisings as well as better access to detailed equity research so they don’t resort to trading on social media rumours.
The prize is a large one. The New Financial think tank estimates that an additional £740bn could flow into the UK economy if households invested a quarter of their financial assets in shares and funds, up from the current 15%.
It’s one ingredient among many to revive the London markets from which 110 companies have departed in a year. But UK retail money should not be diverted where UK pension funds are not prepared to go. I await with interest the explanation as to why our domestic funds don’t exhibit the same “home bias” as those based in Japan or France.
The Chancellor hopes a share sale of the state-backed NatWest will invigorate the market. But what about giving it away? A £500 stake for every child in the country would be a neat way of revisiting the idea of child trust funds that gave a small cash sum to all those born between 2002 and 2011.
That might catalyse some urgently needed financial education so that people plan further out – or at least quiz their pension provider on where their retirement pot has been stashed.
And what about a Martin Lewis figure who can beat the drum for shares to help make them part of the national conversation? Something for Sid’s grandchildren to talk about, perhaps.
