Targa Resources owns and operates natural gas pipelines, gas plants, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) export facilities and crude oil terminals across the US. In mid-August, its shares rose 10% after it announced a 20-year midstream deal with ExxonMobil to build and operate a portfolio of energy infrastructure assets for the oil and gas giant.

Targa's deal is the latest in a series of multibillion-dollar projects recently commissioned by oil giants and governments to help move oil and gas around the world.

Targa Resources (NYSE:TRGP) is a midstream energy group, playing a vital role in the energy sector. These businesses link upstream companies, which drill and extract the raw product, and downstream businesses, which refine and sell it to consumers.

Most oil and gas majors manage this part of the process themselves, but in markets such as the US, where thousands of smaller producers in oil fields need to connect to major refining and storage hubs, midstream firms are a vital part of the chain.

Growth in the pipeline market

The $65 billion Targa is just one such company in the industry. The firm was founded in 2003 and has grown steadily through organic growth and acquisitions. In 2004, it purchased midstream natural-gas operations from oil major ConocoPhillips and in 2005, it acquired an asset from energy supply business Dynegy. In 2007, the company listed as Targa Resources Partners LP, using the money from the initial public offering (IPO) to seal more deals.

Over the following two decades, Targa secured 20 further agreements, encompassing joint ventures, partnerships, asset sales and stake sales in key infrastructure assets.

Today, the group owns and operates assets across New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana. It is active in the key oil-production regions of the Permian, the Bakken Three Forks Shale, Eagle Ford Shale and Fort Worth Basin.

The Permian has become one of the most important oil-producing regions in ExxonMobil's portfolio. When the group sealed the $60 billion deal to buy Pioneer Natural Resources in May 2024, it doubled its footprint in the region and laid out plans to drive production to two million oil-equivalent barrels per day (boepd) by 2030, up from the 612,000 barrels Exxon produced from the region in 2023.

Production hit a record boepd in the second quarter and is now close to 1.8 million as the group continues to grow at a breathtaking pace.

Exxon's total Permian production consists of between 70% and 75% liquid hydrocarbons (crude oil and natural gas liquids) and 25%-30% natural gas. This needs somewhere to go, and that's where the deal with Targa comes into play.

Exxon has agreed to so-called natural gas liquids (NGL) dedications with Targa, whereby it is legally committed to using the company's midstream assets for transport, processing, or fractionation (a physical and chemical separation process) of NGL production from its key fields in the Permian region.

Following these commitments, Targa has announced three new natural-gas processing plants in the Permian Delaware: Wrangler, Ranger, and Ranger II, with a combined capacity of approximately 825 million cubic feet per day.

The plants are expected to be operational in the first half of 2028, with scope for up to five additional processing plants. It also announced plans to build a new, approximately 70-mile, natural-gas pipeline called Bull Run II, supported by take-or-pay commitments (whereby producers buy a fixed amount of capacity and pay whether they use it or not).

To meet these commitments, Targa has upgraded its expected capital spending for the year from $4.5 billion to $5 billion. The business spent $2.1 billion on growth and maintenance capital in the first half of 2026, up 23% from the same period in 2025.

A new gold rush

Despite substantial efforts by policymakers over the past two decades to wean the world off its addiction to hydrocarbons, there has been no let-up in the relentless march of the oil and gas industry.

Pipelines and midstream assets are an often overlooked part of this market, but the conflict in the Middle East has highlighted their importance to the global economy.

With the Strait of Hormuz closed to shipping, pipelines across the Middle East have become critically important for the region's oil and gas producers.

In the past two months, the United Arab Emirates has announced plans to open a new pipeline alongside its existing Habshan-Fujairah pipeline, doubling its capacity.

Meanwhile, America, Iraq and Qatar have also announced plans to upgrade a pipeline from Iraq to Syria, and Chevron is in talks to build a series of them from Iraq to Syria and Turkey.

According to The Economist, citing information from Global Energy Monitor, an oil data and research firm, 12,300 kilometres of pipelines are currently under construction worldwide, with an additional 20,100 kilometres proposed.

Taken together, these additions represent nearly a 10% increase over the 350,000 kilometres of pipelines currently in operation worldwide.

The most cost-effective way to get oil and gas from production fields (usually located inland or in deep water) to refineries and key export markets is by tanker.

Transporting each barrel of oil on the world's largest seagoing tankers can cost as little as a few dollars a barrel. But when it is impossible to use tankers to transport them, producers have no choice but to turn to other methods such as rail, road or pipelines.

A large-diameter pipeline that can carry around one millions barrels of oil per day costs, on average, about $5 million per kilometre, or $5 billion for a 1,000 kilometre pipeline.

That's assuming the pipeline is laid over relatively flat terrain. If mountains, rivers and lakes get in the way, costs can rise significantly.

The significant upfront capital cost is why midstream companies and pipeline owners turn to take-or-pay agreements.

Under these agreements, customers purchase a minimum amount of transport capacity on the pipeline and pay a fee for this capacity, often indexed to the price of oil over an extended period (frequently a decade or more).

The company has to pay to use this capacity whether or not it has oil to transport. This dramatically reduces the risk inherent in the project for the pipeline-operating company and its lenders.

Pipelines require a lot of capital to start, but the long-term economics are hard to argue with.

Data compiled by The Economist shows that the cost of transporting oil via a pipeline is, on average, around $5 per barrel. The cost rises to $18 per barrel when oil is transported via road or rail.

At the height of the US-Iran conflict earlier this year, some reports emerged of companies in central Africa paying as much as $200 a barrel, with $50 of that covering transport costs alone.

No wonder, then, that there is heavy investment in expanding pipeline networks to cut costs and improve reliability. In East Africa, for example, a 1,500 kilometre pipeline is under construction to transport oil from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast.

Argentina is building a 440 kilometre pipeline to connect its key oil fields in the centre of the country to the Atlantic.

There is a growing opportunity for investors. Because returns from pipelines are relatively stable and predictable, thanks to pre-agreed take-or-pay contracts, private infrastructure funds have flooded into the market.

According to McKenzie, a consultancy, assets under management across private infrastructure funds have rocketed to $1.6 trillion in recent years.

This year, global investment group KKR finished raising money for its largest-ever infrastructure fund with a total value of $19 billion. It's almost certain a large chunk of this will go to pipeline projects. Blackstone and Brookfield are also getting in on the action. KKR, Blackstone and Brookfield have signed a $16 billion deal with Kuwait's oil company for a stake in the country's pipeline network.

Don't be tempted by partnerships

The midstream sector is particularly strong in the United States thanks to a quirk of US tax law.

Midstream firms can be structured as master limited partnerships (MLPs), which are pass-through entities much like real-estate investment trusts (REITs).

MLPs pay no taxes, so they can distribute much more of their cash flow to investors. Investors then pay tax on these distributions. Over the past decade, many former MLPs have transitioned to C-corporations (a standard limited company) following a change introduced by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The changes have opened these companies to a wider range of investors, but yields have fallen because dividends are now paid out after corporate tax; in the partnership model the tax liability falls on the investor.

As a rough guide, the Alerian MLP ETF currently yields 7.4% on a trailing 12-month basis, while the Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF, which has strict limits on MLP exposure, yields just 3.6%.

The Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF has enforced limits on exposure to MLPs owing to K-1 tax constraints – the reason why these MLPs are unsuitable for all but the most sophisticated investors. A Schedule K-1 Federal Tax Form is issued by US partnerships to report a partner's share of its income, losses, capital gains and dividends.

In short, they are a nightmare for non-US investors. Even smaller domestic US investors generally avoid partnerships to avoid the added administration these tax requirements create. Very sophisticated investors who want exposure to these businesses may use total return swaps or other synthetic instruments instead, rather than becoming entangled in the web of compliance. Don't be tempted by a high yield on a US midstream MLP.

Fortunately, plenty of other options exist for investors to play this theme. Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI), the largest natural gas-pipeline operator in the United States (and a former division of Enron) consolidated its various MLPs into a single traditional C-corporation in 2014 in order to lower its cost of capital and appeal to a broader range of local and international investors. Many of the company's peers have since followed suit.

A tailwind from AI

Kinder Morgan reported record net income of $867 million in the second quarter, up 21% from the same period last year.

Around $660 million of new projects coming on stream helped boost the company's top and bottom lines, including Tennessee Gas Pipeline's (TGP) Cumberland Project, designed to serve a new gas-fired power plant in Tennessee.

The company said it had a construction backlog of $9.7 billion at the end of the quarter, with an additional $400 million of projects not included in the official backlog, but sanctioned to proceed.

Natural-gas projects made up 92% of the backlog, and 60% of those projects are designed to support local power generation and distribution. The company believes it will outperform expectations by 5% for the year, with adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of $9 billion and a 12% rise in adjusted earnings per share.

Kinder Morgan, like other US midstream companies, is benefiting from increasing demand for power across the US driven by the AI boom. According to Goldman Sachs Research, domestic power demand from data centres is projected to more than double from 31 gigawatts (GW) to 66 GW by 2027, consuming over 8.5% of total US peak summer electricity.

To keep up, companies are commissioning new natural-gas power plants, which can be brought online in a few years and located next to data centres; pipelines are needed to connect these facilities to production zones.

Kinder Morgan may be the largest natural-gas pipeline operator in the sector, but peer Enbridge (Toronto: ENB) is worth nearly twice as much.

It plans to spend between C$10 billion (£5.3 billion) and C$11 billion this year, with half of that already spent in the first six months. It is constructing the $4 billion Sunrise expansion of its British Columbia pipeline (adding 140 kilometres of new pipeline in addition to upgrading the capacity of the existing pipeline) and spending $1 billion relocating a pipeline in Wisconsin.

Williams Companies (NYSE: WMB), the second-largest pipeline group after Enbridge in market value, has raised its spending guidance for the acquisition of Momentum Midstream. It is now projecting spending between $7.3 billion and $7.9 billion in 2026.

Enterprise Product Partners is spending around half as much, with capital spending earmarked at between $2.9 billion and $3.4 billion, net of asset sale proceeds.

Key projects include two new gas-processing plants in the Permian Basin, illustrating the growing importance of natural-gas processing and transportation.

Enterprise Product Partners is the fastest-growing of the large midstream companies, but it is also still structured as a partnership. It reported a 19% increase in adjusted cash flow from operations in the first half to $2.5 billion, as well as a 28% increase in net income, thanks primarily international demand for US natural-gas liquids and crude oil.

Energy Transfer also set several all-time record volumes, notably in natural-gas liquids transportation volumes, which increased 13%, and exports, which increased 25%. Distributable cash flow rose 32% to $2.6 billion. Enbridge, Williams and Kingdom Morgan are all trading at roughly the same valuation, with a price/ earnings ratio (p/e) in the low 20s and a yield between 3% and 5.5%.

The Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF (LSE: MMLP) offers exposure to all three companies, plus 16 others, with Kinder Morgan, Williams, Enbridge and Targa comprising around 40% of the fund. Investors also get synthetic exposure to the Alerian MLP index.

The picks-and-shovels plays

Infrastructure provides a steady, predictable return. But if you want something offering a bit more excitement, consider the companies providing the picks and shovels to help build future pipelines. Companies worthy of research include Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT), Tenaris (NYSE: TS), MasTec (NYSE: MTZ) and Primoris Services Corporation (NYSE: PRIM). Caterpillar is a broad-based play on the health of the US economy. The company reported record revenue of $20.5 billion in the second quarter, up 24% year on year – the first time Caterpillar has reported more than $20 billion of revenue in a single quarter.

Meanwhile, the company's order backlog hit a record of $72.1 billion, that's not just related to its diggers. While Caterpillar is widely associated with earth-moving and construction equipment, it also operates the SPM oil and gas brand and manufactures equipment for gas power plants. This energy and transportation division increased sales by 17% year on year. While the stock has dipped recently, it is still trading at 25 times projected 2027 earnings.

Tenaris is one of the more interesting companies in the area. It supplies tubular steel used to make pipelines worldwide. Sales fell 4% in the second quarter, mainly because shipments to customers in the Middle East were postponed owing to the conflict.

Lower deliveries to Kuwait and Iraq were, however, offset by higher sales to Venezuela and Argentina, along with the start of delivery of offshore line pipes to the Sakarya Black Sea development in Europe.

The company reported a $3.6 billion net cash position at the end of June, compared with a $19bn market capitalisation. The stock is on a forward p/e of 13.9.

MasTec and Primoris are two of the largest engineering construction contractors in North America. The latter is more focused on utilities, while the former has a big pipeline and energy business. Still, both recently reported record second-quarter sales and record order backlogs.

MasTec reported a record 18-month backlog of $21.4 billion; of this total, $1.8 billion was allocated to its pipeline segment, while Primoris achieved a record total backlog of $13.9 billion (comprising $7.7 billion in the utilities segment and $6.2 billion in energy).

MasTec recently acquired The Superior Group to expand its services into datacentre infrastructure and trades at the higher valuation of the two (21 times 2027 earnings versus 14 for Primoris). That's because Primoris reported a loss for the second quarter, despite record sales. The losses stemmed from cost overruns on six renewable-energy projects. All of these will be complete by the end of the year, which should draw a line under the situation.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The Old Mill, Linztford, Rowlands Gill, County Durham

A Grade II-listed former paper mill on the banks of the River Derwent. It has exposed stonework, wood floors, a wood-burning stove and a large kitchen with an Aga. 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, reception, double garage, studio, riverside terrace, gardens, 0.34 acre.

Price: £700,000 Finest Properties 0330-111 2266

The Stack, Trelyon, Truro, Cornwall

A five-storey, Grade II-listed former engine house dating from the 1800s overlooking a valley. It has granite walls with arched doorways and a wood-burning stove. 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, dining kitchen, reception, terrace, workshop, studio, gardens, 0.6 acres.

Price: £895,000 Rohrs & Rowe 01872-306360

Lakeland Cottage, Spark Bridge, The Lake District

This converted 1850s bobbin mill was originally one of the oldest continuously operating industrial sites in the country. The gardens include a pond and a bridge over the river that leads to a pavilion. 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 receptions, study, orangery, dining kitchen, balconies, garages, gym, greenhouse, outbuildings, workshop, private riverside jetty, grounds.

Price: £1.995 million Fine & Country 01539-733500

Rhydlewis, Llandysul, Ceredigion

A mid 17th-century mill in west Wales that was rebuilt in 1811. The former mill has solid stone walls and a full-height living area with a vaulted ceiling with exposed wooden rafters, timber panelling, a Danish wood-burning stove and large glass doors that open onto a substantial balcony that overlooks the garden. 2 bedrooms, bathroom, open-plan kitchen/living area, mezzanine, parking, gardens, grounds.

Price: £350,000 Savills 0292036-8915

The Old Foundry, Panxworth, Norfolk

A former iron foundry and smithy dating from 1869 on the edge of a village. It has double-height ceilings with a mezzanine, exposed beams and a large fitted kitchen. 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, reception, study, office, roof terrace, gardens.

Price: £550,000 Sowerbys 01603-761441

Royal Mint Street, London E1

A penthouse apartment in a converted Victorian factory originally constructed in 1890 for the tobacco manufacturers Thomas Bear & Sons. It has a dual-aspect kitchen and reception with double-height vaulted ceilings, exposed brickwork, the original cast-iron columns, timber floors and Crittal windows. 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, office/bedroom 4, open-plan kitchen/dining room, share of freehold.

Price: £2.25 million Knight Frank 0203-597 7687

The Old Fire Station, Worcester

A top-floor apartment in the award-winning Old Fire Station development in the centre of Worcester. The flat has an open-plan interior with wood floors and modern fittings. It comes with its own private balcony that commands views over Worcester Cathedral and also has access to a communal roof garden. 2 bedrooms, bathroom, open-plan kitchen/ living area, parking.

Price: £260,000 Allan Morris 01905-612266

The Wheelhouse, Canterbury, Kent

A Grade II-listed former industrial building dating from the 18th century just outside the city walls in the Nunnery Fields conservation area. It has a 32ft vaulted drawing room with a log-burning stove and a 36ft sitting room with a vaulted ceiling, exposed timber beams and a Juliet balcony. 6 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 4 receptions, study, conservatory, breakfast kitchen, greenhouse, garage, courtyard garden.

Price: £900,000 Strutt & Parker 01227-473700

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

CVS Group (LSE:CVSG) is an example of how temporary uncertainty can create attractive investment opportunities.

For the past three years, the UK's largest listed veterinary services group has traded under the shadow of the Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) investigation into the sector.

Investors feared the regulator would impose remedies severe enough to undermine the industry's profitability, pushing the shares down to 13 times earnings – a ten-year low.

Yet during that period, the business continued to compound earnings at an attractive rate. Revenue and profits kept growing, the firm expanded internationally and management kept investing in the business.

With the CMA's process now largely complete, investors have a chance to judge CVS Group on its operating performance rather than regulatory uncertainty.

Since listing in 2007, CVS Group has delivered uninterrupted revenue and Ebitda growth, a record few UK-listed companies can match, and one that helps explain why the shares historically commanded a premium valuation.

Few industries offer the resilience of veterinary care. People may postpone replacing a car or renovating the kitchen when finances come under pressure, but pet owners are unlikely to delay treatment for a sick pet. Demand therefore tends to remain resilient through economic downturns.

The industry's long-term outlook also remains favourable. Advances in veterinary medicine mean treatments once confined to specialist centres – including MRI scans, orthopaedic surgery and oncology – are becoming increasingly commonplace.

Add the millions of puppies and kittens acquired during Covid now reaching the age where healthcare spending accelerates, average spending per pet looks set to continue rising.

CVS Group has spent more than two decades building a business designed to benefit from those trends.

What started as a consolidator of independent veterinary practices has evolved into an integrated healthcare network spanning 500 sites, including general veterinary practices, specialist referral hospitals, diagnostic laboratories and an online pharmacy.

That integrated model creates meaningful competitive advantages. A routine consultation can lead to specialist diagnostics, orthopaedic surgery or oncology treatment without the patient leaving the CVS Group network.

Rather than referring work elsewhere, the company retains a greater share of each pet's lifetime healthcare spending while improving utilisation of its specialist facilities. It also makes the network more attractive to both clients and clinicians, reinforcing the advantages that scale already provides.

How CVS Group is cementing loyalty

Roughly 500,000 owners pay monthly subscriptions via The Healthy Pet Club, covering vaccinations, parasite treatments and routine health checks.

The subscriptions provide recurring revenue, and encourage owners to visit their vet more regularly – increasing customer loyalty while creating opportunities for higher-value diagnostics and treatment.

CVS Group has also invested heavily in recruitment, training and retaining veterinary professionals.

While labour shortages affect much of the sector, the firm's scale enables it to offer clearer career progression and more opportunities for clinical specialisation than independent practices can provide.

That should help support future growth and reinforce its competitive position.

The story does not end in the UK. Australia today resembles the UK veterinary market of 15 years ago – fragmented, independently owned and offering considerable scope for consolidation.

In three years, CVS Group has acquired 57 practices generating £80 million of annual sales, with the same disciplined acquisition strategy that proved successful in the UK.

Since the CMA announced its investigation, the company's valuation has steadily fallen even as the underlying business has continued to grow.

Australia has emerged as a meaningful contributor to earnings, the group has strengthened its market position and sales have continued to rise.

Management used the period to strengthen the business and diversify future sources of growth. CVS appears stronger today than when the regulatory review began, yet the share price continues to reflect much of the uncertainty.

That valuation gap is difficult to justify. Businesses capable of generating resilient cash flows, delivering consistent double-digit earnings growth and reinvesting capital over long periods rarely trade on just 13 times earnings. For much of the past decade, investors were prepared to value CVS Group at more than 20 times.

That premium was not simply a reflection of optimism. CVS Group combined resilient end-market demand with dependable double-digit growth, strong cash generation and repeated opportunities to reinvest capital at attractive returns.

Those characteristics remain largely intact today. If anything, the Australian expansion has broadened the opportunity to deploy capital at attractive returns.

Wage inflation remains a challenge across the veterinary profession and continued investment in clinicians may weigh on margins in the near term. Australia must still demonstrate that it can replicate the success of the UK business over a longer period. A rerating may therefore take time.

However, those risks appear broadly reflected in the current valuation. The CMA investigation depressed CVS's valuation for much of the past three years. It did not stop the business from growing.

If the market begins to focus on the latter rather than the former, today's valuation may prove an attractive entry point.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Average asking prices for homes in Glasgow and Manchester’s commuter hubs have soared in the past year, new research shows.

Property portal Rightmove analysed asking price growth in commuter towns linked to six of Britain's largest cities: London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow and Cardiff.

Of the cities analysed, the strongest asking price growth is concentrated in commuter locations by Glasgow and Manchester, with 10 of the top 15 fastest-growing hotspots located here.

Asking prices are rising fastest in more affordable commuter areas, Rightmove said, but falling in some higher-priced locations.

Colleen Babcock, property expert at Rightmove said the research shows two very different stories playing out in the UK’s commuter markets.

“In the more affordable locations around Glasgow and Manchester, asking prices are rising strongly as buyers look for value within reach of major cities,” she said.

“Meanwhile, some of the more expensive commuter hotspots are seeing prices ease, which could create opportunities for buyers who may previously have been priced out.

“For anyone considering a move, it's a reminder that looking a little further beyond the main city locations can often open up more options and better value for money."

Glasgow and the North dominate list of commuter hotspots with the fastest rising asking prices

Asking prices for homes in Falkirk, a commuter town of Glasgow, had the highest annual change among the cities listed, with growth of 13.5%.

The average asking price for home in the town is now £183,596, just lower than the average asking price in Scotland of £199,888, according to Rightmove in August.

Clark Gillespie, director at Forth and Clyde Property, an estate agent in Falkirk, said the city is “an attractive choice for buyers because it offers a combination of affordability, strong transport links and excellent family amenities”.

The town has good transport connections to nearby hubs like Edinburgh and Stirling too, meaning “it's a practical option for commuters who want to stay connected to major cities while getting more for their money”.

Beyond Falkirk, towns near Glasgow dominate the list of commuter hotspots with the fastest-growing asking prices, with six locations earning a place in the top 15.

Several of Manchester’s commuter towns have also seen strong asking prices growth, with four ranking in the top 15.

Asking prices for homes in Rochdale have grown by 8.7% in the past year, the second-fastest of those analysed, bringing the average to £238,115. The suburb has asking prices lower than the average for the North West, which stood at £273,421 according to Rightmove in August.

Other notable Manchester commuter towns with fast-growing asking prices are St Helens (7.8%), Wigan (6.2%), and Stalybridge (5.6%).

Source: Rightmove, 24 August

London’s commuter hubs dominate list of asking price falls

Average asking prices in many towns serving London have fallen, representing 11 of the bottom 15 commuter towns.

Haywards Heath in West Sussex, a commuter town for the capital, has seen the biggest price fall of 4.8% since last year, Rightmove’s analysis found. Here, the average asking price is now £461,066, just below the average of £469,604 in the South East of England.

Meanwhile, asking prices in Maidenhead, Berkshire have fallen by 3.9% in the past year, bringing them to £571,686.

London does have one commuter town that bucks this trend. Broxbourne in Hertfordshire had the third-strongest asking price growth at 8.1%.

Some of Bristol’s commuter hubs have also seen asking prices fall. Asking prices for homes in Bath fell by 3.8% in the past year, while those in Yate, a suburb of the city, fell by 2.3%.

Source: Rightmove, 24 August

During Covid, Halfords (LSE:HFD), briefly benefited from the expectation that everyone would become a cyclist. Many people were making changes to their lives, such as adopting a pet, buying an exercise machine, or taking up a new hobby.

Shares in the firms that served these sectors surged, but once the lockdowns ended, many of these interests dwindled, causing the shares to fall back.

Even today, Halfords’ share price is still down 50% from its record peak in May 2021. But recently it has started to take off again and this time the increase could prove sustainable.

Halfords makes its money from selling accessories and providing repair services for bicycles and cars; it accounts for about half of all bicycles sold in the UK. It operates 370 stores, 496 garages, 21 mobile hubs and 92 commercial depots in the UK and Ireland.

Although overall sales have grown at a solid rate, increasing by around 40% since 2021, this conceals the fact that profitability has been far less consistent, due to higher costs and the overstocking of bicycles.

Normalised earnings per share are now less than half the level reached in 2021.

Halfords brings in a new broom

The good news is that Halfords' problems led to the appointment of new CEO Henry Birch last year. Birch has come up with a turnaround strategy based on three ideas.

In the short term, Halfords has worked hard to boost margins by keeping costs under control. It has also taken steps to improve its digital platform, making it easier for its customers to book services and sign up for regular plans.

However, the most interesting part of the new strategy is that Birch has been trying to shift Halfords' business more towards cars, which now comprise around 80% of sales.

He wants Halfords to focus on car repair and maintenance. One reason for this is that this part of the company has more growth potential than the stores owing to the greater opportunities for upselling (offering customers more and pricier products and services).

Another big advantage is that it is much harder for drivers to delay essential repairs than the purchase of accessories, making the division more resilient to the economic cycle.

Already this strategy seems to be paying off, with last year's pre-tax loss becoming a comfortable profit in the year to April 2026. Like-for-like sales (those from existing business units) are also growing at a healthy rate, while gross margins have improved too; Halfords recently upgraded its profit guidance for the next year.

Despite all this, the stock's valuation remains cheap at 12 times 2028 earnings and barely the value of the company's net assets.

The shares also offer a very solid dividend yield of 4.4%. Furthermore, they have soared 75% since 1 May, and they trade above both their 50-day and 200-day moving averages.

Go long at the current price of 232p at £15 per 1p. Put the stop-loss at 167p, which gives you a stop loss of £975.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

“What should I do if there's a AI crash?” a friend asked me recently. It is a very sensible question – we don't know there will be an AI crash, but having a clear plan to follow when you start to worry is better than waiting and panicking.

However, it's also a very difficult question, because the AI theme is such a huge part of the market: tech is over 35% of the MSCI World index (once you allow for firms such as Amazon and Alphabet assigned to non-tech sectors), while the trillions of AI capital expenditure is also buoying other sectors.

My first suggestion is to look at what wealth preservation trusts such as Capital Gearing (LSE: CGT), Personal Assets Trusts (LSE:PNL)and Ruffer Investment Company (LSE: RICA) hold.

These have diversified portfolios intended to cushion a market downturn, while still achieving growth. You could put some of your portfolio directly into these trusts, or you could look at how they allocate to cash, bonds, gold and other assets such as infrastructure as a template.

Even if you are a growth investor who is comfortable with high volatility to earn higher long-term returns, portfolios like these give you ideas for temporarily reducing risk that may be better than holding cash.

If you prefer open-ended funds, Orbis Global Balanced stands out for an active approach with more of a bottom-up value philosophy than most multi-asset funds.

Hedge against an AI crash with value stocks

If you want to stay entirely in stocks yet still dial down risk, you need to consider what kind of stocks are not caught up in the AI boom and may sell off less or rebound more quickly.

Think about this top down – by region (eg, UK and Europe) or sector (eg, pharmaceuticals and financials). Or you could look for value-focused stockpickers who favour other sectors.

That said, keep in mind that a European industrial that makes power equipment held in a value portfolio may still be a play on data-centre construction.

So it is difficult to anticipate how widely any pain from an AI crash may spread.

The most value-focused global trust is AVI Global (LSE:AGT), while most UK trusts have a value bias.

Among open-ended funds, Ranmore Global Equity has consistent returns from a portfolio that is very different to a typical global fund.

Some niche funds to consider

A third option is to look at very niche strategies whose medium-term returns should hopefully be unrelated to the AI-heavy global index.

Majedie Investments (LSE:MAJE) is now centred around such investments. It's an interesting holding in its own right, while looking at its strategy may help shape your own.

There are many specialist investment trusts and funds such as BH Macro (LSE:BHMG), BioPharma Credit (LSE:BPCR), BlackRock Frontiers (LSE:BRFI), Nippon Active Value Fund (LSE:NAVF) and Rockwood Strategic (LSE:RKW) or Polar Capital Global Insurance.

However, picking such funds is an approach for experienced investors who clearly understand what they are buying.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Putting money in the S&P 500 is popular among those who want to start investing as well as experienced investors.

The S&P 500 is an index that tracks the performance of 500 of the largest companies in the United States, and is therefore one of the most effective proxies for the US stock market.

If you put your money in the index, you are effectively backing large US companies to continue to perform and grow in the future. Historically, this has brought about large returns.

Between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2026, the S&P 500 increased by around 386%, and in the year to 17 August 2026 alone, the index rose by around 20%.

Given the index’s historically strong performance, it’s a popular one for people to track – often using an exchange-traded fund (ETF).

ETFs are one of the “the simplest ways to start investing,” says Kate Marshall, investment analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.

“They can offer a great entry point into investing because they provide exposure to a diversified mix of investments, such as shares or bonds, rather than relying on the fortunes of a single company or asset. This helps to spread risk and can smooth some of the ups and downs that come with investing.”

But with so many options, how do you choose the one that’s right for you?

What are the most popular ETFs that track the S&P 500?

The most popular S&P 500 ETF is the Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD ACC (GBP), according to Hargreaves Lansdown.

That title has several components, each of which says something about the ETF:

• Vanguard is the name of the company that issues the ETF and S&P 500 refers to the index the ETF tracks.
• UCITS stands for “Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities”, a regulatory framework that governs how ETFs in the UK and European Union operate. It effectively means the fund can be sold to UK and European investors.
• USD refers to the base currency of the ETF – in this case US dollars. Some ETFs hedge against the possible impact of currency fluctuations between their holdings’ domestic currencies and another currency.
• ACC means the fund accumulates and reinvests dividends.
• (GBP) at the end refers to the trading currency of the fund. As this particular ETF is listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE), you can buy and sell it in British pounds, meaning you do not need to manually convert currency.

This particular fund is listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) with the ticker “VUAG”.

The second-most popular ETF on Hargreaves Lansdown’s list is also from Vanguard – it is nearly identical to the one detailed above, but the only difference is that this one distributes your dividends. It trades on the LSE with the ticker “VUSA”.

A list of the top ten most popular S&P 500 ETFs among Hargreaves Lansdown’s investors can be found below.

^{Source: Hargreaves Lansdown, 31 July}

How much does an S&P 500 ETF cost?

When comparing S&P 500 ETFs, one of your biggest considerations should be the fund’s fees as they can eat into your returns.

The main one is the expense ratio, an annual fee charged by the fund provider for managing the fund. These are typically levied as a percentage of your holding in the fund.

For example, VUAG has an expense ratio of 0.07% which is relatively low. In contrast, HSBC's S&P 500 ETF has slightly higher fees of 0.09%.

That means that while both ETFs track the performance of the same basket of companies, you will pay higher fees with HSBC.

You should also look out for other types of general fees involved with investing, like platform fees. These are also usually levied as a percentage by the platform you use to make your investments.

Should I pick an accumulating or distributing ETF?

ETFs often have two variants: accumulating (ACC) or distributing (Dist).

The two labels refer to dividends – payments some companies make to investors – and what happens to them when they are paid out.

An accumulating ETF will automatically reinvest dividends back into the fund. This has the benefit of adding more money directly into your investments, meaning your position may grow faster.

Meanwhile, a distributing ETF will pay dividends into a bank account of your choice to do whatever you want with.

Which ETF to pick will depend on your priorities. Afolabi Thomas, equity specialist, Vanguard said: "Investors focused on long-term growth may prefer accumulation shares, while those looking for an income stream may prefer distribution shares."

One rule of thumb is the further you are away from retirement, the more likely an accumulation fund is right for you, as they allow your investments to grow faster.

“A distribution fund might suit someone who wants their investments to provide a regular income, which could become more relevant as they approach or enter retirement”, Lynn Hutchinson, head of ETF and Index Solutions at wealth manager Raymond James added.

“Though it doesn’t have to be a case of accumulation for younger investors and income for retirees. It really comes down to what you want the income to do. Someone in retirement could quite happily continue using accumulation funds and sell some of their investment when they need cash. Likewise, an investor who is still building their portfolio might prefer to receive the income”.

Why does performance differ between ETFs if they all track the S&P 500?

The performance of S&P 500 ETFs can vary slightly from one another.

This is known as tracking difference. Marshall explains: “Tracking difference shows how much an ETF has outperformed or underperformed its benchmark over a given period and is often the more important measure for investors, as it reflects the return they have actually received.”

There are many reasons an ETF may lag its benchmark, like fees, tax rates or securities lending (where the ETF issuer lends holdings out in exchange for a fee).

“Tracking difference gives you a broader view of what actually happened to the ETF's return once the various costs - and potential benefits - of running the ETF came into play,” said Hutchinson.

“That doesn't mean fees aren't important, they are. But when comparing two ETFs tracking the same index, looking at the OCF alone only tells part of the story. Looking at cost alongside historical tracking difference can give a much better idea of how efficiently an ETF has actually done its job: tracking the index.”

Small cap stocks are often overlooked but, for that reason, they can reward patient investors over the long term.

“Small caps offer a rare combination of attractive valuations, growth, and diversification,” said Abby Glennie, co-manager, Aberdeen UK Smaller Companies Growth Trust. “We’ve also gone through market periods globally where the dominant tech themes have driven handfuls of mega caps to lead markets, but perhaps now is the time for market strength to broaden out. Or at least for investor allocations to broaden out from mega caps for risk diversification, as they become increasingly nervous on the artificial intelligence (AI) trade.”

Glennie highlighted that small cap stocks have held up surprisingly well this year in the face of the conflict in the Middle East – which, on paper, could have looked like a major headwind for smaller businesses.

The MSCI World Small Cap Index returned 13.8% in 2026 through to 31 July, outperforming the core MSCI World Index which gained 10.3% in the same period.

“We aren’t seeing risk-off market performance in the way many would expect,” said Glennie. “Part of this driver is that smaller companies are trading at significant discounts to their historical valuation levels.”

What are small cap stocks?

Investment bank Saxo Group defines a small cap stock as one with a market capitalisation (market cap) ranging between $250 million and $2 billion.

Not everyone categorises small caps in this way. The major index provider, MSCI, groups stocks into size categories according to the percentage of the investable market they cover in each individual country, rather than using an absolute figure as a threshold.

“When constructing the MSCI World Small Cap Index, MSCI looks separately at each developed market, such as the US, Japan, UK and Australia,” said Lynn Hutchinson, head of ETF and index solutions at Raymond James. “The large and mid-cap companies might make up around the first 85% of each country's investable stock market.” Small caps then become the rest, and MSCI then combines the small cap stocks from each country into a single, market cap-weighted index.

Generally, though, the $250 million to $2 billion range is a good rule of thumb for thinking about small caps.

With exceptions, their smaller size means small caps are less globalised than larger stocks – they may, for example, be more tapped-in to the domestic economy of their home country than larger cap stocks.

Why invest in small caps?

Small caps can offer diversification, especially in the current environment where momentum investing has concentrated lots of portfolios into the world’s largest stocks.

“Small caps provide exposure to a much broader range of businesses, sectors, and growth drivers,” said Glennie. “Small cap benchmarks and portfolios tend to be very diverse in that way, not dominated by handfuls of stocks or one overarching theme.”

They also offer the potential for higher returns, though this comes with the caveat that you might need to be prepared to ride out periods of volatility.

“In my view, small caps shouldn’t be treated with fear but with healthy curiosity,” said Angeline Ong, senior investment analyst at trading platform IG.

Small caps also offer good value to investors at the moment. The MSCI World Small Cap Index has an average trailing price/earnings (P/E) ratio of 18.4, as of July 2026 – compared to 23.1 for the MSCI World Index, according to data from investment research firm Morningstar.

Are UK small caps good value?

The UK’s small cap sector in particular offers good value. It trades even lower – at just 15.6 times trailing earnings, according to Morningstar.

“We see opportunities across global small caps, but the UK remains especially compelling on valuations,” said Glennie. “UK smaller companies have experienced a prolonged period of investor neglect, and the asset class has been unloved.

“This has left valuations substantially below both their own history and many international peers,” Glennie continued. “At the same time, many UK listed small caps generate revenues overseas, giving investors access to international growth opportunities but at a discounted price awarded for its headline UK listing tag.”

UK stocks are widely undervalued, across the market cap spectrum. But its small caps are weathering the economic storms that 2026 has thrown. The FTSE 250 index (which is made up of mid-cap stocks) gained 10.6% in 2026 through to 25 August, while the FTSE AIM All Share Index (comprising the country’s smallest stocks) gained 6.4%.

“While macroeconomic uncertainty remains, this isn’t holding back the asset class in the way many market participants might fear,” said Glennie. “Many high quality UK small caps continue to deliver strong earnings growth, maintain strong balance sheets, and generate strong cashflows, as well as support shares through ongoing share buybacks.”

The risks of investing in small caps

MSCI highlights the fact that small caps can be more volatile than larger stocks. Additionally, they might be less liquid, which can make trading them more costly.

“If you’ve not done your homework, your due diligence… you could be caught offside and end up nursing quite large losses,” said Ong.

The lack of liquidity, Ong said, could mean you can’t sell a position you want to exit quickly enough just because there aren’t enough buyers on the other side.

“The risk with small caps is you might not have the flexibility if you want to get in and out quickly,” she said.

How to invest in small caps

It’s tempting to try to pick the small cap stocks you want to invest in, particularly as many of these might be businesses you’re familiar with yourself.

But this approach can exacerbate the risks of small cap investing. “We’d suggest [small cap investing] is best approached through a portfolio holding, rather than direct individual equities,” said Glennie. “This is because of the benefit of risk adjusted returns that you get through a managed portfolio, whereas at individual stock levels the risk level is much higher- so that strategy is perhaps only suitable for a certain type of investor.”

Tracker funds replicating some of the major small cap indices include the iShares MSCI World Small Cap UCITS ETF (LON:WLDS) or the Vanguard FTSE Global Small-Cap UCITS ETF (LON:VSML).

Active funds tracking global small caps include the Janus Henderson Horizon Global Smaller Companies Fund or the Invesco Global Smaller Companies Fund.

Investment trusts that focus on small caps include The Global Smaller Companies Trust (LON:GSCT) and Edinburgh Worldwide (LON:EWI).

For a focus on UK smaller companies, you could select Aberdeen UK Smaller Companies Growth (LON:AUSC). Top holdings as of 31 July include investment platform AJ Bell (LON:AJB) and construction firms Morgan Sindall (LON:MGNS) and Galliford Try (LON:GFRD).

If you do want to pick your own small cap stocks, Ong stresses the importance of sticking to companies, or at least sectors, that you understand very well.

“It’s not like buying Microsoft,” she said. “You really need to know what you’re buying.”

When you’re planning your retirement, one of the key decisions you’ll need to make is what your residential status will be: especially, will you live in your own home throughout your golden years, or spend your retirement renting?

The latter is not a cheap option. Renting in retirement will now cost an average of £419,000 as rents are expected to more than double in the next 20 years, according to new research from retirement specialist Standard Life.

While data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows rents are an average of £1,160 today, this could climb to £2,350 by 2046 if they continue to grow by an average of 3.8% a year, the research shows.

The high cost means those who plan to rent into their retirement will need to ensure their pension pots support that choice.

But ONS data shows the average pension wealth for someone aged 65 to 74 was just £145,900 in 2022 – much less than the rental costs over a 20 year retirement.

It means pensioners are at risk of not having enough to pay for their housing costs if they do not own a house and plan to rent when they retire.

Pete Cowell, head of annuities at Standard Life said: “For a growing number of people, housing costs could be the single biggest expense they face in later life, adding many thousands of pounds a year to the income needed to maintain a minimum standard of living.

“While support is available for those on the lowest incomes, many retirees will still need to plan for how ongoing housing costs will be met over the long term.”

Although it is expensive, more people are now renting in retirement. Data from the government’s Pensions Commission shows the proportion of households renting privately in retirement has more than doubled in the last 20 years.

Cowell added: “As renting in later life becomes more common, planning how those costs will be met is likely to become one of the most important financial decisions people make.

“Whether through savings, guaranteed retirement income products or a combination of both, having a clear plan for meeting those costs can make a significant difference to long-term financial security.”

The true cost of renting in retirement where you are

If you are planning to rent during your retirement, you will need to take a careful look at your pension pot and work out if you can afford to do so where you are as prices vary wildly across the UK.

The most expensive place to rent as a pensioner is London, where the average price of a year’s rent is £28,520.

That works out to £859,000 when over the course of a standard 20-year retirement, factoring in rental price growth.

The region with the second-highest expected renting cost is the South East, where the average for a year is £17,610 or £531,000 over 20 years – much lower than the price in the capital, but still far more than in cheaper regions of the UK.

As with house prices, there is a large North-South divide in rental costs as the North of England and the devolved nations are much cheaper than the South of England.

The cheapest region to rent in retirement is the North East of England, where a year’s rent costs an average of £9,670. This amounts to £291,000 over 20 years.

Meanwhile, the second-cheapest region is Yorkshire and the Humber, where the average rent for a year is £10,650 – or £321,000 over a 20 year retirement.

The interactive map below shows the projected cost of renting during a 20-year retirement.

Should you rent in retirement?

While renting in retirement is expensive, there are also some positive sides to renting rather than owning your own home.

“If you decide to rent, then you have the flexibility to move around without the burden of having to sell a home,” said Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at wealth manager Hargreaves Lansdown.

This may mean you can be closer to your loved ones, or you may choose to move to a cheaper part of the country or one that fits your lifestyle better.

Certain maintenance problems with the home you rent will also be the responsibility of the landlord, meaning you will not need to fork to fix a leaky roof, for example.

Additionally, if you do not expect to pay off your mortgage before the end of your retirement, renting can be a more flexible solution and potentially a cheaper option depending on where you live.

There are of course drawbacks, the main one being that the home you rent is owned by your landlord, so you do not have the final say on what happens to the property.

In the worst-case scenario, you may be evicted from your home, though the new Renters’ Rights Act means this is much more difficult for landlords.

If you own your home instead, you will not need to worry about being evicted or getting approval to make changes to your property. Once you have paid off your mortgage, you will have far lower monthly costs too, meaning you will have more money in your pocket each month.

“Going into retirement owning your own home means your day-to-day expenses will likely be lower,” said Morrissey. “You can also use your home to release money either through equity release, or downsizing, should you need it.”

Ultimately, whether you should rent in retirement is dependent on your lifestyle, whether you already own a house, and whether you can afford it with your pension.

For all their talk of investing for the long run, active fund managers like to trade.

Take Terry Smith for example, whose flagship Fundsmith Equity fund reported portfolio turnover of 51.8% in the first half of 2026. In his mid-year letter to shareholders, Smith said the fund had started building positions in 12 companies while exiting, or starting to exit, 13 others. For a fund whose investment mantra ends with "do nothing", that's a lot of activity.

For investors in active funds, keeping tabs on what they own can be a challenge.

The latest Fundsmith Equity factsheet (31 July) lists only its top 10 holdings. It also says that, while a position is being built, the company name may be withheld until the intended weighting has been accumulated. That's a reasonable trading precaution, but another reason why monthly factsheets can be far from comprehensive.

A top 10 list is useful, but it's more like the signature dishes on a restaurant menu than an inventory of the kitchen. A fund can change materially beyond those 10 names, especially if several smaller positions are being added or sold.

While many funds only highlight their top 10, because in most cases these are the largest holdings, should investors be given more information to understand the risks and strengths in their portfolio?

Fund holdings: What the rules require

There's no law spelling out exactly what investment funds must disclose about their holdings. But the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requires funds to follow the Investment Association's Statement of Recommended Practice. These demand a full portfolio statement, listing every investment asset and liability, in the annual and half-yearly long reports behind the headline factsheet.

Some asset types have separate presentation rules, but the principle is the same.

The catch is timing. Annual reports can be published up to four months after year-end and half-yearly reports up to two months after the half-year. Because the snapshots are six months apart, the latest complete picture can be nearly 10 months out of date by the time the annual report deadline arrives.

But for investors, knowing more can avoid over-concentration and better understand their market exposure. But are they always useful?

The top 10 is a convention, not a rule

If you want to see a fund's 10 largest holdings, the latest factsheet is generally easy to find. But if you want more than the top 10, then that may not be so easy to find.

Publishing just the top 10 is not because of the regulator. The FCA doesn't require a monthly factsheet at all, let alone prescribe the top 10 format funds use when they publish one. Publishing the top 10 is an industry convention, not a regulatory judgement about how much investors need to see.

Anything beyond those 10 holdings sits in the fund's long report, which must list every investment asset and liability. It takes more digging to find than a factsheet, but that's where the full picture sits.

That full list can reveal changes the top 10 misses. It can show whether the manager's stated process is still visible in the portfolio, whether concentration has shifted and whether several funds you own increasingly hold the same companies. Smaller positions can also expose sector, country or company-type bets that the headline names miss.

Having the ability to see the full portfolio doesn't mean every new holding deserves an inquest. Active managers are paid to make decisions, and investors who second-guess every trade can create problems of their own.

But while questioning every individual trade is one thing, checking whether the fund still resembles the one you chose is another.

Funds transparency

Greater transparency is usually seen as a good thing. But it has its downsides. If, for instance, a manager reveals an unfinished trade too quickly, other investors can trade ahead of it, copy the idea or push the price against the fund.

The academic evidence points to a trade-off, not a simple case for more disclosure. Parida and Teo (2018) studied US mutual funds that moved from semi-annual to quarterly disclosure after the 2004 SEC rule. Funds that had performed well under the old regime subsequently lost about 22.5 basis points, or 0.225 percentage points, a month. The effect was particularly pronounced among funds holding illiquid portfolios.

Other research identifies further drawbacks. Agarwal et al. (2015) found that mandatory portfolio disclosure could improve stock liquidity, but at a performance cost for some funds. Xin, Yeung and Zhang (2024) linked more frequent reporting to window dressing: reshuffling a portfolio just before it is due to be seen. These are both US studies, and neither directly shows what monthly disclosure of near-current holdings would do to UK funds.

Full transparency can give investors a false sense of security. Woodford Investment Management published the full portfolio of the Woodford Equity Income Fund from its launch in 2014 and was widely praised for doing so. But after prolonged disastrous performance, the fund was suspended in 2019 and closed soon after.

Full holdings are still useful as they can show unusual or unquoted positions and prompt harder questions than a headline list ever could.

What they can't tell investors is how easily assets could be sold into redemptions, how uncertain valuations were or whether governance would hold up under pressure. Transparency can sharpen due diligence, but it cannot replace it.

How to check fund holdings

To see what’s in your fund, you may have to do the homework yourself. Begin on the manager's website. If there's no spreadsheet or report, find the latest annual or half-yearly report and search for "portfolio statement".

If it's hard to find, don't read too much into that. Treat it as an information disadvantage, not evidence of bad management or an automatic sell signal.

Once you have the full portfolio, check both the holdings date and the publication date. They can be months apart.

Then compare the latest complete portfolio with the previous one. Look for new and exited positions, changes in concentration, shifts in sector or geographic exposure and growing overlap across funds. You are looking for material change, not trying to reverse-engineer every trade.

Investors need enough visibility to spot material change; managers need enough delay to finish trading without being front-run. Making a recent, complete portfolio easy to find is a reasonable place to start.

Nvidia reported record adjusted quarterly earnings per share (EPS) of $2.22 for the second quarter (Q2) of its 2027 financial year following market close on 26 August – 5.7% above analysts forecasts of $2.1, and 120% higher compared to the same period last year.

Quarterly revenue was $96.2 billion, 4.4% above the $92.2 billion analysts polled by London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) had forecast and representing a 106% year-on-year increase.

“Nvidia’s (NASDAQ:NVDA) results show that the artificial intelligence (AI) boom is not running out of demand,” said Lale Akoner, global market strategist at investment platform eToro. “The constraint is increasingly the industry’s ability to supply and finance the infrastructure required.”

The results sent Nvidia’s share price surging in after-hours trading. As of 9.45am BST on 27 August the shares had risen around 7.5% from the previous day’s close.

“AI has reached its inflection point,” said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of Nvidia. “It’s doing useful work. Its tokens are productive and profitable.”

Nvidia’s results in detail

There were more positives for investors throughout Nvidia’s results.

Revenue for the Data Center division – the largest and most closely-watched of Nvidia’s business arms as it contains all of the AI hardware elements – beat expectations at $89 billion, up 117% year-on-year.

Nvidia’s gross margin increased from 72.5% a year ago to 75.0% in the latest quarter.

“Nvidia remains the main toll collector on big tech’s enormous AI budgets, capturing a large share of each new round of infrastructure spending,” said eToro’s Akoner.

Nvidia also issued Q3 revenue guidance of $108 billion (plus or minus 2%) – higher than the $105.1 billion that LSEG’s poll had projected.

“Blackwell Ultra drove the quarter, while Vera Rubin is already entering production,” said Akoner. “This smooth handover suggests the AI hardware upgrade cycle is accelerating without the pause some investors feared.”

How did other stocks respond to Nvidia’s results?

While growing demand for Nvidia’s products is a positive for the AI boom in general, it could be seen as a headwind for the companies that are reliant on buying them.

Alphabet fell 0.4% overnight, while Meta Platforms and Amazon both fell around 0.2%.

These are not large shifts, and could be due to other factors besides Nvidia’s results. But many are starting to question whether the so-called hyperscalers will ever recoup the hundreds of billions of dollars they are pouring into AI infrastructure.

“Once the initial excitement settles, questions are likely to resurface about the durability of this boom in revenues,” said Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at wealth manager Wealth Club. “It’s becoming less about whether Nvidia can keep climbing the AI mountain, and more about how long it can sustain this extraordinary pace of ascent and whether the vast sums being poured into AI infrastructure will ultimately deliver the returns needed to justify the colossal investment.’’

Higher costs for memory chips could also become a headwind for Nvidia in due course, according to Akoner.

“Rising memory costs are expected to push gross margins down from 75% to 71%-72%,” she said. “Nvidia’s ability to raise prices should help margins recover, showing considerable pricing power, but it cannot escape supply pressures entirely.”

It’s a difficult time for value investors.

The theory goes that value stocks – those trading at a lower price relative to their fundamentals than others – ought to outperform the rest of the market over the long term.

That’s not how it’s playing out. In the 10 years to 31 July 2026, the MSCI World Value Index generated an annualised return of 11.0%, compared to 13.3% for the MSCI World Index. The former index is based on the latter, with a tilt towards value stocks.

Momentum has been a more dominant investing factor during that time. The MSCI World Momentum Index has outperformed the main index over the last 10 years, with an annualised return of 15.2% during that time.

The rise of momentum investing was acknowledged in July 2026 by veteran value investor Terry Smith, CEO and chief investment officer of investment management company Fundsmith, when he told Fundsmith Equity Fund shareholders he would start paying more attention to the momentum factor when selecting investments.

“Periods of market exuberance can be particularly testing for valuation-driven investors,” said Cedric Jacque, investment manager at wealth manager Lloyd Capital. “Today, the combination of the artificial intelligence (AI) investment boom, strong momentum and elevated valuations has clear echoes of previous late-cycle markets.”

Why is value investing struggling?

There are two main reasons why value investing has trailed the returns of alternative strategies in recent years, though the two are interrelated.

The first is the rise of passive investing. According to data from investment research company Morningstar, passive funds’ share of the total investment fund market has risen from 12.4% in January 2008 to 46.4% in July 2026.

Most passive funds are market-cap weighted, meaning that the largest companies form the largest part of the fund. When investors buy index funds, they are therefore putting most of their investment into the largest companies in the index. In other words, the more popular passive investing becomes, the more money pours into the world’s biggest companies, pushing their share prices higher regardless of any change in their fundamentals. Indeed, many of their buyers are likely not looking at their fundamentals, but simply buying an index fund.

The rise of passive funds has coincided with an era during which technology stocks have ballooned in value. Developments like cloud computing, the proliferation of smartphones and, more recently, the AI boom have concentrated much of the market’s growth into tech stocks.

Tech is a tricky sector for value investors, because it tends to look far more at the future than the past or present. As of 21 August, software company Palantir Technologies traded at over 150 times its trailing earnings and 112 times its forecast earnings; the equivalent figures for Tesla are around 336 and 185 respectively. Tech investors price in expectations of rapid future growth that make the sector effectively off-limits for value-focused investors.

Terry Smith highlighted the convergence between these two phenomena in his shareholder letter, ascribing much of his fund’s underperformance to “a market which is dominated by so-called passive or index funds… and the boom surrounding AI which have combined to produce a market dominated by momentum rather than any fundamental factors like profitability, returns on capital and growth”.

Does value investing still work?

Smith hasn’t abandoned value investing outright, but he identified a need to “take more account of momentum… in our investment decisions”.

That shift has drawn criticism, though, with some arguing the current environment is precisely where it is most important to adhere to value investing’s principles.

“We agree with [Smith] that a market driven by passive flows and momentum can become increasingly distorted, that momentum sits at levels last seen in 1999, and that this will end badly,” said Lloyd Capital’s Jacque. “Where we part ways is on the remedy.

“We believe that becoming more of a crowd follower, and setting aside time-tested investment principles, is not a solution we can get behind,” Jacque continued. “We continue to believe that disciplined, bottom-up value investing, with a focus on earning power, is the right way to compound capital over the long term.”

Jacque argued that the passive investment boom isn’t a threat to patient value-driven investors, but rather creates an opportunity.

“Passive investing and index flows should increasingly expand the pool and the magnitude of the mispricing and therefore lead investment opportunities for the patient long-term shareholders,” he said. “We are thrilled about that.”

UK fintech PensionBee (LSE: PBEE) has carved out a successful niche for itself, to become the UK's most recognised pension consolidator with the UK pensions sector undergoing a major transformation over the last ten years.

Following the introduction of the Auto Enrolment scheme in 2012, assets in defined-contribution (DC) schemes have exploded, and the pensions industry has rapidly had to adapt to this new norm. The DC pension market has two main segments: workplace schemes and personal or individual wrappers. The latter is dominated by the self-invested personal pension (SIPP) market and the consolidation of legacy workplace schemes. This market is worth around £600 billion and is growing.

The larger workplace-scheme segment is far bigger and more complex. The government is pushing through regulations to consolidate this market, with a goal of consolidating pots into £25 billion-plus mega funds. Although the market has consolidated significantly over the past ten years, hundreds of schemes remain, some with as few as 100 members, which can add cost and complexity.

Where PensionBee comes into the picture

Auto-enrolment is widely recognised as one of the most successful pension reforms worldwide. Under the current rules, an employer must enrol an employee in a pension scheme if they are a UK resident, work in the UK, are aged over 22 and earn more than £10,000. The minimum contribution is 8% of salary, 5% from employees and 3% from the employer.

Employers can pick one of two approaches: either a contract-based approach, or a trust-based scheme. Under a contract-based scheme, individual contracts are agreed between the scheme member (the company) and the pension provider, usually an insurance company or investment platform. With a trust scheme, the company agrees a relationship with a large pension master trust, such as Nest or the People's Pension.

Auto-enrolment has greatly reduced the burden on employers of setting up pensions for employees. It also helps employees save for the future, as they are, as the name suggests, auto-enrolled in the scheme and contributions scale up with wage growth. But people do switch jobs regularly throughout their career and due to the fragmented nature of the industry, there's no guarantee your next employer will be able to offer access to the same scheme as you had previously.

How PensionBee consolidates retirement pots

PensionBee markets itself primarily as a pension-consolidation platform, but it also provides private-pension schemes, such as those for the self-employed. It does not manage the underlying investments itself, but takes a platform fee and partners with institutional giants such as BlackRock, State Street and HSBC to provide a range of low-cost funds.

PensionBee's real edge is its technology platform. Pension transfers and consolidation can be costly and time-consuming. PensionBee aims to complete electronic transfers within two weeks, although more complex transactions can take longer. The company's focus on technology, marketing and simplicity has really resonated with consumers. It estimates it generates around £100 of net asset inflows for every £1 it spends on marketing. It has a 57% brand-awareness score among consumers, one of the highest among pension brands, and customer retention of 95%.

The last time I covered the company in early 2022, it had just reported £5.8 billion in assets under management. According to its latest half-year results, that figure has grown to £8.6 billion of assets under administration across 327,000 invested customers.

With exposure in both the UK and US, the firm operates across markets representing more than $30 trillion in retirement assets. Currently, the US market is still tiny, with less than $5 million of assets under management. However, the company is in talks with more than 100 intermediaries and has an estimated $1 billion in potential recurring annual inflows over the medium term from this business line. This growth should be relatively inexpensive as it has already spent heavily on the technology it needs. As a result, most of its day-to-day spending is now on marketing, plus select technological improvements. PensionBee should be able to scale quickly and efficiently.

Profitability is in sight for PensionBee

In the first half of its 2026 financial year, the firm reported group adjusted Ebitda of -£1.1 million. The UK market alone generated adjusted Ebitda at £1.5m million in the first half or £7.5 million over the last 12 months.

According to estimates compiled by analysts at Peel Hunt, the company is expected to report adjusted Ebitda of £0.5 million for the full year across all markets. Analysts believe PensionBee will achieve sustainable profitability from 2027 onwards and reach management's 20% adjusted Ebitda margin by 2029.

PensionBee is still a small-scale business in a large market with much bigger and deeper-pocketed competitors. However, the opportunity should not be understated. Peel Hunt believes the firm will report £1.5 million of adjusted Ebitda by 2027 and then £8.08 million by 2028, as the group finally reaches an inflexion point in its growth. Sales are expected to rise from £43 million for 2025 to £83 million by 2028, according to Berenberg, as assets under management rise to near £13 billion. Canaccord Genuity has similar figures.

If the company hits these targets, it could achieve a return on invested capital of 34.5% by 2028. If there's one number that illustrates just how profitable PensionBee could be at scale, it's this. The next few years could transform its fortunes.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Fidelity China Special Situations is an actively managed investment vehicle providing broad access to China's growth opportunities – from established technology leaders to entrepreneurial businesses that have yet to float on the stock market. In the year to date, Chinese and Hong Kong stocks have experienced greater volatility as geopolitical tensions, higher energy prices and concern over inflation weighed on sentiment, although China's diversified economy provides some resilience against these external headwinds.

It's not all about AI either. Semiconductor, power equipment and other AI infrastructure-related companies have seen stronger earnings momentum, while internet platforms have been market laggards. Domestically, consumers' confidence remains subdued amid ongoing property-market weakness. But there are signs that the economy is stabilising, supported by state policy that remains supportive, but targeted. Against this backdrop, many companies are trading at significant discounts to their global peers and there are attractive opportunities across a range of sectors spanning advanced manufacturing, property and domestic consumption, where strong long-term fundamentals are not reflected in valuations.

Three Hong Kong stocks for your portfolio

Contemporary Amperex Technology (Hong Kong: 3750) is the world's largest battery manufacturer and a global leader in the electrification value chain, supported by its leadership, manufacturing scale and continued investment in innovation.

Batteries for electric vehicles remain an important growth driver, but the firm is becoming increasingly diversified. Energy storage systems (ESS) are emerging as another major source of growth, supported by rising generation of renewable energy, electricity security needs and rapidly expanding demand for power from AI data centres. Commercial vehicles and accelerating EV penetration outside China provide further opportunities, with electrification in many markets still at an early stage. With its scale and technology leadership, this firm is well positioned to capture these multiple sources of long-term demand across transport and power systems.

Anta Sports (Hong Kong: 2020) is one of China's leading sportswear groups, with a multi-brand portfolio spanning mass-market sportswear, premium sports fashion and specialist outdoor categories. Its strong brand management, disciplined execution and proven direct-to-consumer model have supported consistent market-share gains in China's growing sportswear market. Importantly, Anta has demonstrated a strong record of acquiring, repositioning and scaling brands, providing additional avenues for growth beyond its core franchise. Newer additions, such as Jack Wolfskin and Puma, further broaden the portfolio. Anta is well positioned to continue gaining market share across China's evolving sportswear industry.

China Resources Land (Hong Kong: 1109) is one of China's leading property companies, with a high-quality investment portfolio, including shopping centres alongside its residential business. Despite the prolonged downturn in the market, the company has continued to gain market share as weaker developers have exited the industry, while its investment properties have delivered steady growth and resilient recurring income. The market is not fully appreciating the quality and value of its investment-property portfolio.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

When INPP – International Public Partnerships (LSE: INPP) – invested in the Thames Tideway Tunnel project in 2015, many investors thought its directors and managers were mad. Weren't infrastructure projects in the UK always delivered late and massively over budget? The project was a carve-out from the financially stretched Thames Water and would surely be dragged down by it.

Instead, the 16-mile super-sewer under the River Thames from Acton to Beckton was completed as planned in March 2024. In the year to 31 March, it “diverted over 20 million tonnes of sewage and drain overflow that would otherwise have polluted the River Thames and prevented over 1,000 spills”. This represents a 95% reduction in the volume of untreated waste water entering the river.

Win-win investing from INPP

Infrastructure investment is often denigrated as being expensive off-balance-sheet financing of projects the public sector should do itself. However, the success of Tideway shows why bringing in the private sector can help construct and manage infrastructure projects at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, as well as offering good returns for investors.

INPP's stake in Tideway is one of its largest, representing 15.6% of its £2.9 billion of net assets. The investment in gas distributor Cadent is of a similar size, while a stake in 11 offshore transmission owners (OFTOs) is over 20%. The latter does the boring but essential job of connecting offshore wind farms to the onshore grid.

Lower down the list is the 4.2% invested in BeNEX. The British political class may have become disillusioned with the separation of Britain's railway system into network infrastructure, rolling stock and operating franchises, but Germany has copied the model. BeNEX has concession agreements with 14 of Germany's 16 federal states and owns more than 130 trains.

Last year, the trust won a deal to contribute £254 million to the construction of Sizewell C nuclear power station in return for a 3% stake, of which £35 million has been invested so far. The investment is “expected to generate an annual cash yield of 6% through construction and early operations, with a significant step-up in yield once fully operational”.

Meanwhile, it is trimming mature investments, selling part of its stake in Angel Trains, which owns over one-third of the UK's passenger rolling stock, for £3millionmn. It has also reduced its exposure to public-private partnerships (PPPs) through asset sales – this week, it sold stakes in 15 London schools for £58 million – and handing back concessions as they expire.

INPP’s shift to higher returns

This is part of a broader trend. Over the years, International Public Partnerships and its peers have moved away from the lower-risk PPP projects into ones that are riskier, but offer higher returns, such as Tideway and Sizewell. 3i Infrastructure (LSE: 3IN) was the first to do so, and International Public Partnerships and Pantheon Infrastructure (LSE: PINT) followed. More recently, HICL Infrastructure (LSE: HICL) has announced a further shift away from the PPP “yielders” in the portfolio (currently 53%) into “growers” (currently 47%) and “enhancers”, such as data centres and leisure facilities. This is expected to increase its annualised total return to 10%, from 8.5% historically.

The infrastructure funds have been held back in recent years by rising gilt yields, but discounts have fallen in the last year and operational performance has been good. Discounts to net asset value (NAV) range from 5% (3iIN) to 15% (HICL). Yields are between 3.5% (3iIN) and 6.1% (HICL), with dividends likely to rise with inflation.

International Public Partnerships is on a discount of 7%, yielding 6% and has 72% of its assets in the UK. A writedown of its £24 million investment in a UK broadband firm this week is not material (0.9% of NAV) and guidance is unchanged. Despite a 24% return over one year, it continues to look attractive.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Tina Fordham is the former chief global political analyst at Citigroup and founder of Fordham Global Foresight. Tina has spent more than 25 years advising senior business, government and military leaders on navigating political and geopolitical risk; she has served as a senior adviser to the UK prime minister and advised military leaders. She also sits on advisory boards at Columbia University and the University of Cambridge. Her forthcoming book, Mad World: A Geostrategy Survival Guide for Leaders, is published by Whitefox in September 2026.

Matthew Partridge: Your new book, Mad World: A Geostrategy Survival Guide for Leaders, argues that in the current geopolitical climate, companies no longer have the luxury of ignoring politics?

Tina Fordham: Yes, ignoring geopolitics was something you could only afford to do in the era of globalisation, which happens to be the time that most of today's executives, myself included, grew up in.

Matthew Partridge: You've talked about the emergence of a new geopolitical supercycle.

Tina Fordham: The data for that study examines the period between 2010 and 2025. So even before Donald Trump's second term, we detected a tripling of events posing geopolitical risk. People hope things will get better after Trump leaves office in January 2029, but the evidence suggests that the drivers of geopolitical risks are multiplying and have been for a long time. Moreover, the guardrails that temper the risks are either eroding or being actively dismantled. So the idea that we only have to survive another year and a half before things return to normal is misplaced.

Matthew Partridge: Which guardrails in particular are being eroded?

Tina Fordham: There's a diagram in the book of the supercycle framework, where we talk about some of the long-term drivers, like declining trust, climate change and income inequality. However, when there are risky events or shocks, good government, liquidity from central banks, institutions or even social cohesion can help you mitigate these problems. But when these guardrails are damaged, even relatively small risks can become quite disruptive. This is difficult for most executives to get their heads around, but it's how we try to apply a systematic conceptual framework to thinking about geopolitical risk.

Matthew Partridge: Your book is primarily aimed at business leaders and executives, but would it also apply to ordinary investors deciding how to structure their portfolios and which assets to choose?

Tina Fordham: There are certainly implications for everyday people who are having to think about how to manage their own lives, their families and their careers in a time of unprecedented global change.

Most people have yet to recognise that we are in a new age. They assume we are still in the period most of us became used to: one of continuously improving living standards. In fact, the period between the fall of the Berlin Wall [1989] and the collapse of Lehman Brothers [2008] was actually the most peaceful and prosperous period in all of human history – not the baseline for the future. You can mess it up.

Matthew Partridge: Turning to specific issues, I've noticed that in your recent talks you've been a lot more pessimistic about the prospects for a lasting resolution to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Why is that?

Tina Fordham: We were among the few to come out strongly and say that the conflict between Iran, Israel and the US would not be a short war, which was counter to the consensus at the time that it would all be over very quickly. Our reasoning was based on how Iran has always negotiated. It was never going to be enough simply to order them to meet the White House's maximalist demands.

I also felt that there is vanishingly little evidence in history of aerial bombardment causing regime change, one of the original aims of the conflict. Every US president since Jimmy Carter in the 1970s has wargamed and studied possible options for dislodging this regime and concluded that it was too hard to do without massive loss of life and huge disruption, so president Trump wasn't going to change that.

So now, we've got the situation where the US has seemingly depleted its stock of long-range munitions, while Iran can regenerate its drones faster than the US can replenish its stocks. While the markets have been reacting to the good news – in the short term – that there may be a resumption of oil supplies to the Strait of Hormuz, the actual long-term effect of this war has been to give Iran a source of leverage that it didn't have before, a power it is not going to relinquish. Meanwhile, Trump seems to have got bored with this conflict, except he's realised he can't just walk away.

Matthew Partridge: What is the most likely outcome?

Tina Fordham: Most market participants have assumed that America doesn't want to have high petrol prices before an election. However, while this might have applied over the last 25 years, I think this time we're going to end up in a situation that is between war and peace, where Trump will keep threatening because that's the only tool he has.

What's more, the Gulf states have prevailed upon the White House not to destroy Iran's energy infrastructure because of what that would do to the rest of the region. So, we are likely to be left in a situation where Iran is more powerful – if battered – after this war. What's more, the situation sends a message to the rest of the international community that if they don't like their present borders, or have some beef with their neighbour, the US has a much smaller capacity to stop them.

Matthew Partridge: On a more positive note, it looks as though Ukraine is fighting back against Russia and seems to be regaining some of the territory the invader stole. Will that continue?

Tina Fordham: The Ukraine conflict is being fought over feet and yards of territory. While this is a quagmire for Russia, with China prevailing on Putin not to go nuclear, neither is he going to come to the negotiating table in any meaningful way and agree to a ceasefire. Russia will not seek a deal that gets sanctions rolled back. That is simply not how Putin thinks.

Given that 40% of Russia's energy infrastructure has been destroyed, resulting in queues for petrol, Putin may want to make a grand gesture to demonstrate control. There is therefore a material risk of Russia attacking a Nato member. Most British people don't seem to have factored this risk in, even though we're being attacked by Russia all the time.

Matthew Partridge: Could Putin end up like the Serbian dictator Slobodan Miloševic – who was overthrown in 2000 – and succumb to internal dissent or a palace coup?

Tina Fordham: While there is no chance of Putin ending up in The Hague, a palace coup is more plausible than a popular revolution. But, the trouble with palace coups is you really need an alternative. And Putin has made sure that there are no plausible successors to him. So, while he and his policies are increasingly costing the Russian elites more than they're gaining, leaders like this can hang on for a long time.

Matthew Partridge: Do you think Ukraine's brave resistance and the fact it's actually been able to at least block Russia will give hope for other countries like Taiwan?

Tina Fordham: Ukraine has certainly given Beijing pause for thought. The fact that both the US and Russia have been dealt a serious blow by much weaker middle powers suggests that might doesn't necessarily win and can leave you stuck in a very awkward position for a long time.

Matthew Partridge: Trump will have to leave office in January 2029. The Republicans are now expected to lose at least one House of Congress seat in the midterms. Do you think that a bad result in the midterms will rein in Trump, or do you think that he might become even more unpredictable?

Tina Fordham: This is the question on the minds of many. The Iranian regime have said that they weren't going to negotiate any longer with the US but are going to wait until after Trump has left office.

While the US constitution means that Trump is limited to two terms, he is printing “Trump 2028” hats already. There's also the possibility that Trumpism may outlast Trump himself. In the most sinister scenario, the dubious behaviour by many in the administration means that even if they are voted out, the threat of possible investigations may complicate the usual peaceful transfer of power.

Matthew Partridge: In your book, you say that while the big losers from automation had been older, blue-collar workers, the worst affected by AI will be middle-class people in their 20s and 30s, who tend to be more politically aware. Will this fuel opposition to AI?

Tina Fordham: Absolutely. It will also increase demand for policy solutions. Covid has led to a rise in both benefits and expectations of government support. The historians who speak very grandly about previous waves of innovation and industrialisation forget that during the Industrial Revolution, working-class people didn't have the vote, which is not the case today.

In any case, revolutions are not fought by the poor, they are launched by the middle classes, and it's not only university students and recent graduates who are angry, but also those in the their 50s who are being told they need to work longer because the pension age is being delayed. All of this is going to add to pressure on governments at the same time that Europe needs to spend more on defence.

Matthew Partridge: What is the upshot of all this for investors?

Tina Fordham: We used to think about geopolitical risk in terms of what could go wrong and undermine a portfolio. But recent geopolitical developments and other themes such as AI have led to a situation of constant potential danger, as opposed to sporadic upsets. The threats won't dissipate within a year or two; this backdrop is set to last longer than a decade.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

There is a pervasive belief that the “Magnificent 7” tech stocks are the drivers behind the relentless rise of the US stock market. The Magnificent 7, sometimes called the Mag 7, are Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, Meta and Tesla – seven of the largest companies in the US and therefore the world.

But the Magnificent 7 no longer ride together and their performances this year are very different. The S&P 500 has returned 13.4% year to date. Amazon has returned 21%, but Tesla -25%. In between are Nvidia (19%), Apple (16%), Alphabet (12%), Microsoft (6%) and Meta (0.4%). As a result, Meta and Tesla have been pushed down the list of the world's largest companies by TSMC, Broadcom, SpaceX and Saudi Aramco, now in sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth place, respectively.

Fifteen companies in the S&P 500 have more than doubled in value this year, led by Sandisk (+413%), Dell (+255%) and Micron (+207%). None of the Magnificent 7 come in the top 150; Tesla is near the bottom. As strategist Ed Yardeni notes, the Magnificent 7 are up just 4.8% this year against 16% for the remaining “impressive 493”. Information technology is still the S&P's second-best-performing sector (up 23.6% against +28.4% for energy), but the Magnificent 7 no longer lead it.

The Magnificent 7 have invested heavily in AI

The dull performance may be accounted for by investors' concern about the gigantic amounts of money these companies are investing in AI. This may seem like collective insanity, but these companies are led by and employ many of the smartest people in the world. How likely is it that they are wrong and the itinerant pundits, with limited knowledge and experience, are right? In any case, any fall-off in investment and thereby an increase in cash flow could lead to renewed outperformance.

Yardeni notes that the forward multiple of earnings of the S&P 500 Growth index has fallen to 20.2 against 18.3 for the Value index. In 2000, he says, Growth traded on a multiple above 40. Growth's forward earnings have been boosted by mark-to-market capital gains, so the multiple of sustainable forward earnings is higher but, he points out, “bull markets do not die of old age or of accumulated gains. They usually die when earnings roll over.”

The driving force of the bull market is then “FEMO” – fabulous earnings momentum, rather than “FOMO”, or fear of missing out, as in the late 1990s. “In the current bull market, the S&P 500 is up 117% since it began on October 2022. That ranks fifth of the eight bull markets since 1969.” Taking a longer-term perspective, the index is up 277% since 2015, but between 1985 and the millennium, it was 625%. “If the analogy continues to hold and the market keeps climbing, the interesting years are ahead rather than behind.”

How other markets are faring

Yardeni also monitors sentiment, which suggests that institutional investors are bullish (a contrary indicator), but “retail investors not so much”. Markets do not go up in a straight line, so a setback or period of sideways trading would be likely to dampen sentiment, paving the way for a further advance. The chances of a serious setback to earnings growth are small; if the Gulf war and its effect on oil prices could not achieve that, what could?

Elsewhere, the outlook is at least as good. The reliably pessimistic and risk-averse British have led to a serious undervaluation of the UK market and a takeover bonanza for private equity and overseas bidders, which shows no sign of slowing. The yen, at last, is showing signs of stabilising if not reversing its 15-year bear market. This would mean that the strong underlying performance of the Japanese market would look even better for overseas investors.

The outlook for the European economy is improving while its companies have successfully globalised. Technology companies in emerging markets are doing even better than in the US with year-to-date performance of 32%, so South Korea (+71%) and Taiwan (+62%) lead the country performance table even after the recent setbacks. Earnings growth in the MSCI All Countries World index ex US has been pedestrian in the last three years, but is about to accelerate sharply, with 34% growth expected in the next 12 months.

Further evidence of a broadening market comes from the improved performance of smaller companies, with the Russell 2000 index for the US hitting record highs and outperforming the S&P 500 over the last year. Small caps in the UK, Europe and Japan have continued to underperform, but performance has picked up and may be moving ahead.

This is not the end for the bull market

The outperformance of the Magnificent 7 in recent years looks like having been a passing phase. Its end does not signal the end of the bull market, much less an imminent collapse, but a healthy return to the traditional pattern whereby mega-caps lag a broadly advancing market.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The past few years have been very tough for UK housebuilders and their shareholders, says Jo Rands, a portfolio manager on the UK Equity Income, UK Managers' Focus and UK Rising Dividends strategies at ClearBridge Investment. The government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes in five years, but various headwinds, including cost increases and higher interest rates, have caused UK housebuilders' shares to plunge over the past two years. Yet with Andy Burnham entering No. 10 with talk of building more council houses, and even bringing back a form of Help to Buy, their shares have rallied recently. Will this continue?

Why are UK housebuilders struggling?

At the core of the British housing crisis is the fact that we're simply not building enough housing, either in the public or the private sphere. David Crosthwaite, chief economist of the Building Cost Information Service, notes that housebuilding peaked in 1970, with nearly 400,000 homes completed, of which just under half were council houses. Fast-forward half a century and only 200,000 homes were built last year, of which just 4,000 were council housing. Essentially, “you have a diminishing supply of housing, particularly social housing, at a time when the population is continuing to grow at a strong rate”.

Unsurprisingly, the gap between housebuilding and population increase has created a huge backlog. There are several ways of estimating this unmet demand, says Edward Clarke, an associate director at planning consultancy Lichfields UK. When you take into account what statisticians call “concealed households” – people who would like to start a household, but are currently “sofa surfing”, or living with their friends and parents – then “we really need to build two million more homes”. That might seem like a shockingly large number, but Clarke thinks it could even be an underestimate. Getting the homes-to-population ratio in line with continental Europe would require even more construction – around 2.4 million additional homes.

It isn't just young people, and those on the margins, who are suffering as a result. The shortfall in supply means that houses in the UK are less affordable, in terms of the ratio of prices to incomes, than they are in countries such as France and Germany, as Jeremy Matallah, co-founder of rent-to-own company Keyzy, notes. Just to meet the immediate needs of the market, “we should be building around 300,000 homes a year”, roughly a 50% increase from the 200,000 homes a year that we are building at the moment.

Hoarding land and restrictive planning rules

Most experts agree that the big factor behind the lack of supply is the planning system. In 2024, the Competition and Markets Authority, the competition regulator, was called in to investigate allegations that builders and developers were hoarding land excessively, says Paul Smith, managing director at The Strategic Land Group. It found that the market for land was not working properly and that the planning system was such a fundamental barrier to the delivery of new houses that it felt compelled to talk about it, even though this was outside its original remit.

The planning system acts as a block on development in two main ways, says Smiths. Firstly, there simply isn't enough land earmarked for development, with only a third of councils in England even bothering to have up-to-date local plans. Worse, the process for dealing with individual planning applications, which is supposed to act as a “safety valve” given the lack of local plans, is too subjective (and therefore unpredictable) as well as increasingly complex.

Even when decisions are made, the process is getting ever slower due to a shortage of town planners. Indeed, “applications for new homes take more than three times longer to be approved than they did a decade ago, with the median time around 349 days”, says Smith. This matters, as even putting in a planning application can be expensive for a developer, costing around £150,000-£200,000 per application, even if the application is not successful. “If the process was speeded up and the outcome was more predictable more developers would be willing to take the risk.”

The plethora of rules and regulations make the planning system dysfunctional. Section 106 agreements, for example, which oblige builders to help contribute to additional development-related infrastructure, have been around for decades, but their scope has been broadened to the extent that you now see local police forces asking developers to contribute money so they can buy more laptops, says Smith. The Future Homes Standard rules on carbon emissions also “typically add around £7,000 to £8,000 per home in extra building costs”.

The Building Safety Act, approved in 2022, which significantly increased the safety requirements for tower blocks, is particularly contentious. The intention, to avoid a repeat of the Grenfell Tower disaster, is of course understandable, but the legislation “feels like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, reducing the appetite that anybody has to actually build flats”, says Adam Murray, CEO of planning and development consultancy Urbana. Indeed, developers in Germany and the US are safely able to build high-quality tower blocks “without having to follow rules such as having to have two staircases”, says William Reeve, chief executive of property technology company Goodlord. Loosening these rules is key if we are not to end up depending solely on single-family homes.

A blizzard of other problems for UK housebuilders

Poor planning rules aren't the only constraint on housebuilding. Even when development is allowed, buying land can be difficult when a site is owned by multiple parties, says Matt Beckley, partnerships director at Keon Homes. Remediation of former industrial land to make it fit for housing can also prove expensive. The government provides some support in the form of grants, but “there needs to be a good, hard look at the amount of funding that's available and how that is financed”, says Beckley.

Housebuilders are also “contending with a notable skills shortage, which means builds are taking longer to complete and projects are stalling”, says James Anderson, a construction supply-chain expert at Catnic. The National Audit Office has estimated that as many as 755,000 workers are needed to help meet housebuilding targets, even before factoring in those leaving the sector. The industry, including Catnic, is providing training, but additional help will be required.

The demand side is a problem too, says David Smith, portfolio manager of Henderson High Income trust. Elevated mortgage rates and political uncertainty over tax issues have weighed on consumers' sentiment, leading to a “lacklustre number of transactions”. Higher inflation and borrowing costs are also having a negative impact, says Ronnie George of Volution. He believes some form of subsidies for those buying a home, along the lines of Help to Buy, could be useful.

Andy Burnham's challenge

New prime minister Andy Burnham clearly faces a significant challenge. But many are optimistic that he can really make a difference, given his record as mayor of Greater Manchester between 2017 and 2026. His achievements in that time in office were far from perfect, says Smith, and he didn't quite hit the ambitious housebuilding targets that he set himself – he ended up making some concessions to those who opposed greenbelt development. But he deserves credit for going out and creating his own plan for local development rather than just “kicking the can down the road”, as local leaders in other parts of the country did.

As mayor of Manchester, Burnham at least showed an “understanding of the problem and a willingness to try and address it”, says Matallah, who is impressed that Burnham has promised to go beyond the existing commitment to invest £39 billion over ten years in affordable housing by tackling the “structural undersupply of social housing for the past 40 years”. There are indications that Burnham may be willing to allow councils to keep more of the revenue that they make from the sale of council houses, to use public lands for development and even take on debt in order to build more houses.

Burnham's “Manchesterism" – the belief that growth can be boosted by “devolving power to give mayors and councils the power and resources to make decisions” – could work, says Terry Woodley, managing director of development finance at Shawbrook. “Of course, there needs to be some sort of national strategy put in place, with regular monitoring to make sure that the councils are using these powers to boost development,” but decentralisation, combined with Burnham's enthusiasm, represents “the best chance to boost housebuilding levels that we have seen in over a decade”.

And it's not as if Burnham is starting with a blank slate, says Clarke. Over the last two years, the Starmer government put a lot of effort into reforming the system in order to meet their targets of building 1.5 million homes in five years. This was expressed in their proposed reform of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), a draft version of which was circulated last December (with further revisions in May). As well as trying to make the process more rules-based and hence predictable, the new NPPF encourages councils to free up more sites by pushing them to allow development in the “greybelt” – that is, lower-quality greenbelt sites. The NPPF has also raised overall targets for home building in various areas.

Signs of an uptick in the housebuilding sector

Already many in the sector are starting to become more upbeat about the prospects for an increase in the number of homes built. “You've always got to be optimistic in this game,” says Smith, and there are a number of “easy wins” the government can make to help remove “the grit from the system”. Smith is particularly happy that Matthew Pennycook, the minister of state for housing and planning, has been kept on and elevated to a Cabinet role.

“We have at last moved away from a situation where there wasn't a proper housing minister, and if there was, they were moved on every 12 months,” says Bleckley. It feels “like there is now a will to get more houses built than there has been for more than ten years”. This doesn't mean the government will hit its targets for housebuilding over the next five years (although Bleckley hopes he's wrong about this), but “I do think that there will definitely be an uptick”.

There are “many uncertainties”, says Clarke, but there has recently been an increase in the number of planning submissions made, which is a good leading indicator of future activity. We “should expect to see more homes being built if the market conditions allow for it”. Similarly, despite his concerns about the shortage of planners, Woodley is starting to see that “some of the developers that we work with are getting approvals” more rapidly.

The housebuilding market may be about to turn

The market may now have reached the point where it is too negative about the housebuilders, says Jack Fletcher-Price, an equity analyst for Morningstar, but things are unlikely to improve until something happens to shift investors' perceptions. If (or when) such a catalyst appears, things could change quickly. Shares in housebuilders shoot up, sometimes by as much as 5% in a day, every time there is a rumour that the government is going to bring back some kind of Help-to-Buy scheme, for example.

If there is an uptick in housebuilding, the big housebuilding firms will be best placed to profit “because they tend to have stronger balance sheets, established land banks and greater access to funding, allowing them to respond more quickly if market conditions improve”, says Guiseppe Scozzaro, a partner with chartered accountants and business advisers Goodman Jones. Any uptick would “also benefit a much broader range of firms, from planning consultants and specialist lenders, to building-materials suppliers and infrastructure providers”. We take a look at some of the most promising investment ideas below.

The most promising housebuilding investments to buy now

One of the most attractive housebuilders is Persimmon (LSE: PSN). Its relatively high exposure to the north of England, compared with London and the southeast, “was previously seen as a negative, but it is now viewed as a positive, as you're seeing much better house-price growth up there”, says Morningstar's Jack Fletcher-Price. David Smith of Henderson High Income also likes that the firm is “one of the most vertically integrated UK housebuilders, with in-house brick, tile and timber-frame manufacturing operations, helping to improve cost control, efficiency and security of supply”. Persimmon trades at 11 times 2027 earnings and on a yield of 5.8%.

If snapping up a bargain is your priority, then you might want to think about Barratt Redrow (LSE: BTRW). It is even cheaper relative to its fundamentals than Persimmon, says Fletcher-Price, although he thinks that Persimmon has the more attractive business. The stock is trading at just a touch more than half its book value (the value of its net assets). Barratt also appears cheap on other metrics, trading at 12 times 2027 earnings and offering an attractive yield of 3.97%.

If you're willing to take on a bit more risk, then Vistry (LSE: VTY) is even more of a bargain, trading at an even greater discount of more than 70% to its book value, and at only 6.4 times its 2027 earnings, following a series of scandals over understated costs, followed by poor results. The company has a unique model, says ClearBridge's Jo Rands. It partners with local authorities on projects and so “could possibly do well from a greater emphasis on affordable housing” (though Rands emphasises that she doesn’t have an overall view on the company).

As well as housebuilders, businesses exposed to drainage, piping, insulation, heating systems and other construction inputs could see stronger demand if housing output increases, says Smith. One promising play on that theme is Genuit (LSE: GEN), which provides water, climate and ventilation systems for buildings. The firm has enjoyed solid growth, with revenue climbing by a third between 2020 and 2025, and profits doubling during the same period. Despite this, the stock trades at less than ten times 2027 earnings and on a dividend yield of 4.9% Volution (LSE: FAN) also specialises in ventilation systems. It has had an even stronger record of growth than Genuit.

Aided by a series of acquisitions, the company has nearly doubled its revenues and tripled its profits over the five years to 2025. Chief executive Ronnie George thinks that greater awareness of the importance of good ventilation, especially following the Covid pandemic and several tragic cases where people have died from asthma triggered by mould, will drive further demand for its systems. The bulk of its business used to come from retrofitting old buildings, but new-builds account for around half of revenue. Volution trades at 15.8 times 2027 earnings and offers a dividend yield of 2.1%.

Another company that should do well from any uptick in UK housebuilding is Ibstock (LSE: IBST), which makes bricks and concrete for the UK construction industry. Revenue has been volatile since 2020, but the long-term trend is upwards, with both sales and profits expected to keep increasing over the next few years. Two new brick factories have been completed, which should help to keep revenue growing. Ibstock trades at 16.4 times expected 2027 earnings and offers a dividend yield of 2.8%.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Over the last 12 months, developer Caswell & Dainow have seen a 50% increase in enquiries, the majority from homeowners interested in selling parts of their garden off for development.

Co-founding director Adam Dainow says: “In the cost-of-living crisis people are looking at ways they can release large sums of cash to help out."

But not everyone agrees that selling off some of your land, while appealing in the short-term, will have little or no impact on the value of your home when you come to sell up.

MoneyWeek investigates the pros and cons of selling off some of your garden.

Does your land have development value?

Your plot must be big enough for at least one property which is in keeping with the size expectations of similar neighbouring properties.

In inner city locations where space is scarce, your plot may not be expected to host a property and a garden, for example. A small terrace or balcony may be sufficient. In suburban areas, where large gardens and privacy may be expected, a desirable plot is likely to be larger.

How much money could you get from selling part of your garden?

That depends on whether you live in a higher or lower value housing market. According to Caswell & Dainow, a plot of land where a typical three- or four-bedroom house sells for £500,000 to £600,000, your land could be worth up to £100,000 before planning permission or between £150,000 to £200,000 after planning permission has been granted.

In housing markets where the same size property sells for between £750,000 to £1 million, homeowners could expect £150,000 to £175,000 for their garden pre-planning permission and from £200,000 to £275,000 post planning permission. These values rise to up to £300,000 and £400,000 pre- and post-planning respectively where nearby homes sell for up to £1.5 million.

Dainow says: “We worked with a homeowner in North London who received £150,000 for land to the rear of his property where planning was secured for a three-bedroom family home and a family in South London who received £140,000 for overgrown side land that had become a regular site for fly tipping.”

But those living in more modest neighbourhoods need not miss out.

“In areas of lower value, landowners may still net between £30,000 and £60,000 for a slice of their garden for a single home,” he says.

How does it work?

If your property has a mortgage secured on it, your lender must agree to the sale first.

The bank’s lending is based on the original value of your property, which will go down when you sell part of it – reducing the value of their security.

The lender will also be looking at the future saleability of your home, says Nicholas Mendes, mortgage technical manager at brokerage John Charcol.

“Practical details matter,” he says. “If the sale affects access, parking, drainage, services, boundaries, or rights of way, it can quickly become a problem.

“What often derails these plans is not the idea of selling land itself, but the knock-on effect.

“A lender may be nervous if the remaining property becomes less marketable, if valuable development potential is being carved away, or if the title becomes more complicated because of covenants, restrictions, or unclear boundaries.”

Your mortgage lender is likely to request a valuation at your cost before making a decision. Lenders can ask for part of the mortgage to be repaid from the sale proceeds depending on the size of your debt and value of your property after selling some of your garden.

If you have been given the go ahead, you have three routes to choose from;

• Sell your garden to a developer before getting planning permission – this is a quickest option but will net you the lowest price.
• Agree with the developer on a ‘subject to planning’ offer, whereby they agree to buy your garden at a higher price on the condition they can get planning permission – you’ll need to instruct a solicitor to draw up a contract.
• Apply for planning permission yourself. This is the costliest option but if successful, you’ll end up with the highest price for your land.

Will selling your land devalue your home?

That depends on the size of your original plot, the amount of land you are left with and the type of area you live in.

Richard Sexton, managing director of Legal & General Surveying Services, said: “In some cases, selling off some land won’t hit the value of your property, particularly where the remaining plot is still generous for the type and location of the property.

“A house with an acre of land may still feel substantial and attractive with half an acre of land, especially in rural or semi-rural settings. However, buyers will pay a premium for space, outlook and exclusivity – so removing development land can still reduce desirability even if the house remains objectively sizeable.”

Land only adds meaningful value to a home where it contributes to privacy, setting, future potential or overall enjoyment of the property. If the sale changes the character of the house or reduces separation from the neighbours there is usually a material impact on value and market appeal.

Those with a smaller plot to begin with, in a suburban location, are more at risk of damaging the value of their property.

“Carving off land can alter the balance of the property quite significantly, affecting privacy, parking, outlook and future extension potential,” adds Sexton.

“In valuation terms, buyers tend to react more negatively where the remaining plot begins to feel compromised or out of keeping with neighbouring homes.”

Brett Ray, registered valuer and founder of Survey Shack, an app-based property assessment tool, has seen the impact on saleability first hand.

“Part of the garden to a house on my street had previously been separated from the original plot,” he said.

“That property has now been on the market for over a year. Ray believes this shows how reducing garden size and altering the original plot can “affect future saleability”.

Since the pandemic, Ray says outside space has become much more valuable, particularly in and around large towns and cities so homeowners should weigh up the risks and benefits carefully.

What to consider before selling your land

A loss of privacy, your garden or windows being overlooked, extra traffic down your drive or side access to your property and the stigma of being the property with the smallest garden on the street are all serious considerations for sellers, says Trudy Woolfe, director of lender services at e.surv chartered surveyors.

“Many people just see the pound signs rather than thinking about the impact,” she adds. “It’s a fine balance.”

Practical complications around access rights, drainage and shared boundaries can all affect saleability and the chances of getting a mortgage if not handled properly.

If your garden has development potential, by selling off the land, you are eliminating an upside of the original property.

And, by selling it to a developer who secures planning permission and sells it on to a builder, you lose control over the design quality and materials used which could have a detrimental impact on the desirability of your home.

Dainow says a good developer will make sure any new homes built on garden land would be positioned to protect the homeowner’s privacy and property value.

But rather than take the developer’s word for it, you can get specific terms written into the contract with the developer.

For example, you could agree you don’t want to look at any windows from a particular elevation or that maintenance of any new access created is the responsibility of the new owner.

You can also include an ‘overage’ clause in your contract which stipulates that the seller gets more money if the land becomes more valuable after the sale because more homes are being built on the land than originally agreed.

Independent advice should be sought from both a solicitor and chartered surveyor with development land expertise before agreeing any terms as land values can vary considerably depending on planning prospects and local demand.

India is rapidly becoming one of the world’s economic powerhouses.

India’s economy grew by 6.5% in 2025, according to IMF data, making it the fifth-fastest growing that year. With a GDP of over $4.1 trillion it is also the sixth-largest global economy.

It overtook China as the world’s largest country by population in 2023, and its growing population – particularly its expanding middle class – underpins much of its current and expected economic growth.

“A young working-age population, urbanisation and rising incomes should continue to expand the consumer base and gradually shift spending towards financial services, healthcare and other discretionary categories,” said Chetan Sehgal, lead portfolio manager at Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust.

Its economy has been transformed over the last decade by reforms such as the goods and services tax (GST), a single indirect tax which simplified the pre-existing tax system in 2017, and the unified payments interface (UPI), a protocol that facilitates instant digital payments on mobile devices using a unique digital ID.

“Registered GST taxpayers have increased from around 6.7 million in 2017 to 16.5 million as of May 2026, while UPI processed more than 240 billion transactions in FY2025/26 and had more than 550 million users by June 2026,” said Sehgal. “This brings more consumers and businesses into the formal system, creates digital transaction histories and expands the addressable market for credit, insurance, payments and savings products.”

All of this amounts to a powerful shift that could create an enormous amount of value for the country’s consumers and investors.

“India today reminds us of China’s internet opportunity 20 years ago – but with artificial intelligence (AI) potentially accelerating the transformation,” said Kevin Carter, founder and chief investment officer of investment manager EMQQ Global.

What’s driving India’s stock market?

India’s stock market has come up against greater challenges this year than it has faced in recent times, particularly the consequences of the conflict in Iran.

Between the start of the year and 19 August, the MSCI India index fell 9.3%, reflecting a range of macroeconomic headwinds that mostly result from the US-Iran conflict.

“India has been impacted by volatility in crude [oil] prices as a result of ongoing wars,” said Sehgal, “as well as by cost inflation in the AI supply chain, where India is a major importer.”

Since hitting a low of 1,049.11 at the end of March, though, the index has staged something of a recovery, gaining 10.8% between the end of the month and 19 August.

“Indian stocks have stabilised after a bruising first quarter and are proving resilient to both the Iran war and the ‘AI-takes-all’ market environment,” said Peter Clark, chief executive at global wealth manager Bentley Reid.

“Though cyclical headwinds remain there are growing signs that the record foreign selling of Indian equities is over with $2 billion of net inflows being recorded in June,” Clark added.

He highlighted that the MSCI Emerging Market index is dominated by Taiwanese and Korean chipmakers. Three companies – Taiwan Semiconductor, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix – account for more than 28% of the index as of 31 July.

“If the AI trade ever reverses, ‘AI laggard’ is a moniker the Indian market may be happy to own,” said Clark.

Which are the most appealing sectors in India’s stock market to invest in?

Though it is perceived to be light when it comes to AI, India’s stock market benefits from having several sectors where it is a major global player.

IT services

For years, IT services companies have been at the forefront of India’s economic growth. Companies like Tata Consultancy Services (MUMBAI:TCS), Infosys (MUMBAI:INFY) and Wipro (MUMBAI:WIPRO) are among the world’s largest, with combined market capitalisations of over $100 billion.

Despite fears that AI could disrupt this market, Sehgal still views it as a significant sector for the country. “India retains significant advantages from its large skilled workforce, global delivery capabilities and deep client relationships,” he said. “We believe that, as enterprises adopt AI in their workflows, there will be opportunities for such companies to develop new solutions and move further into higher-value consulting and transformation work.”

Financial services and banking

One of the most significant impacts of UPI is that it brought a population of Indian consumers that had previously been largely unbanked into the mainstream financial system – and continues to do so.

“As more households and businesses enter formal payment and tax systems, banks gain greater visibility over customers and cash flows, supporting credit underwriting and the cross-selling of savings, insurance and other financial products,” said Sehgal.

Sehgal picked out ICICI Bank (MUMBAI:ICICIBANK) as an example of the kind of bank he favours: “well-managed private-sector banks with strong deposit franchises and disciplined underwriting”.

Pharma and healthcare

“Healthcare remains a structural opportunity,” said Sehgal. “Rising incomes, greater insurance penetration and increasing expectations for quality of care should support demand across hospitals, health insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

India has also historically been a strong producer of pharmaceuticals and could benefit from further demand from the world’s largest companies.

“There’s a need from the multinational [pharmaceutical companies] to have an alternative supplier at scale,” Gabriel Sacks, manager of the Aberdeen Asia Focus fund, told the MoneyWeek Talks podcast. “When you don’t look at China, then you start to look at places like India.”

Consumer discretionary spending

India’s growing middle class and rising smartphone adoption is also creating rapid growth in consumer discretionary spending, “particularly in areas such as food delivery, convenience and other digitally enabled services” Sehgal said.

Coupled with the GST reducing tax rates on consumer goods, discretionary spending and demand for premium offerings are expected to rise.

Are Indian stocks overpriced?

There are clearly opportunities for investors here, but given its size relative to other emerging markets, India’s stocks don’t necessarily fly under the radar. The biggest challenge to would-be investors in India over recent years has been that its companies are relatively expensive.

According to the website World PE Ratio, India’s stock market has an average price/earnings (P/E) ratio of 22.4 as of 18 August. That makes it more expensive than the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks 30 US large cap stocks with an average 21.5 P/E ratio.

The good news is that prices have come down this year. The MSCI India Index fell 8.9% in 2026 through to 18 August.

“Recent underperformance relative to other emerging markets has also reduced India's valuation premium to below its long-term average,” said James Thom, lead manager of Aberdeen New India Investment Trust. “The energy crisis has eased, liquidity conditions are becoming more supportive and policymakers are refocusing on the reform agenda… In our view, improving fundamentals combined with more reasonable valuations create a compelling backdrop for the market.”

How to invest in India

It can be difficult for DIY investors based overseas to access Indian stocks directly, though this may depend on your broker.

For most investors, using a fund or investment trust is likely to be the best means of gaining exposure.

Aberdeen New India Investment Trust (LON:ANII) targets “world-class, well governed companies at the heart of India’s growth”.

Banks ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank (MUMBAI:HDFCBANK), telecoms business Bharti Airtel (MUMBAI:BHARTIARTL) and automaking conglomerate Mahindra & Mahindra (MUMBAI:M&M) are the trust’s top holdings as of 31 May.

Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust (LON:TEM) has 8.3% of its portfolio invested in India as of 31 July. ICICI Bank is its largest Indian holding, accounting for 2.5% of the portfolio.

EMQQ Global issues the India Internet ETF (LON:INQP) which specifically targets the opportunities in India’s expanding internet economy. Top holdings as of 19 August include food delivery business Eternal (formerly Zomato), non-banking financial company Bajaj Finance and Reliance Industries, a conglomerate that includes the country’s largest telecoms operator, Reliance Jio.

The fund “focuses on the digital disruptors across fintech, e-commerce, quick commerce, online travel and consumer platforms,” said Carter. “These companies are already taking share from traditional businesses, and AI should accelerate that by lowering costs and improving monetisation.”

Fast-fashion retailer Shein is about to make its debut as a listed company. It is floating on the Hong Kong market at the end of this month, with a target valuation of between $25 billion and $30 billion. It remains to be seen whether it can get that away successfully, but it looks like a missed opportunity for the City of London.

Shein initially explored a listing in New York, and when that looked troublesome, switched its focus to the City. Over the course of 2024 and 2025, Shein was trying to get approval for its initial public offering (IPO) here. It jumped through all the hoops, but more and more questions kept being asked about whether it was suitable for the London market.

The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, for example, objected that London must “uphold strong governance standards”. Liam Byrne, the then chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, wrote to the stock exchange to demand it put tests in place to “authenticate statements” by firms seeking to list, “with particular regard to their safeguards against the use of forced labour”. The questions went on and on, but the message was clear. Shein did not look like the right sort of company for the privilege of listing on a bourse as distinguished as the LSE.

Shein has legitimate questions to answer... but so what?

Seriously? Looking back, it has to be asked what the critics could possibly have been thinking. It is legitimate to ask questions about Shein's business model. When you are selling summer dresses to teenagers around the world for a fiver or less, you are probably not paying the workers in the factory a fortune. There are concerns about its supply chains, about its governance standards and its relationship with the Chinese government. It is probably not a company that many of us would want to work for, or even buy stuff from.

But so what? The harsh reality is that the London stock market is in terrible shape. More companies have left it than joined in every year since 2022. In the last 20 years, the number of companies quoted on the main market has fallen from more than 1,700 to less than 1,000. In 2024, London dropped to 20th place globally for IPOs, overtaken by Oman and Malaysia among many others. Almost every week brings news of another major company accepting a takeover from a foreign bidder – easyJet was the latest example – and each time it happens the market gets a bit smaller. On its current track, the City is trapped in a vicious cycle. The market gets smaller and smaller, global investors have less incentive to pay any attention to it, valuations remain low, and more companies decide to leave, or else never list their shares in the first place.

The London Stock Exchange is trapped in a vicious circle

A Shein IPO was a chance to break out of that. Whatever its faults, it is a huge player in the global fast-fashion industry, and has millions of loyal customers around the world and a formidable business model. It has made online retailing work in a way that few of its competitors have been able to. At a $30 billion valuation, it would have been one of the biggest IPOs in Europe this year, would have leapt straight into the top half of the FTSE 100, and would have added a major technology company to an index that is dominated by a handful of ageing banks, oil companies and pharmaceutical conglomerates.

Shein would have put the London market back on the map and stirred up some interest from global asset managers who have largely forgotten it even exists. In its wake, a lot more of the fast-growing Asian technology companies might decide that London was a pretty good place to list their shares after all, and investors buying Shein might well decide there were a few more companies on the same market that were worth adding to their portfolio too. Valuations would start to rise, the market would recover, and it would become a more attractive place for entrepreneurs to list their business. A vicious circle could have been replaced with a virtuous one. As it is, the London market must make do with ridiculous and self-important moral posturing that no one is listening to anyway.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Investing ‘factors’ refer to a number of styles or strategies that dictate how investors choose their stocks. Some of the best-known are value and growth.

Momentum investing is one of the simplest investing factors, but paradoxically one of the most difficult to successfully adopt.

In essence, it means you buy stocks, funds or other assets that are rising in price, and sell the ones that are falling.

It is an especially prevalent factor in the current market environment. As of 18 August, the MSCI World Momentum Index has returned 21% so far this year, compared to 13% for the MSCI World Index (the former index is based on the latter, but has a heavier weighting towards stocks that have positive momentum traits).

In July, the respected fund manager Terry Smith, CEO and chief investment officer of investment management company Fundsmith, wrote to investors in the Fundsmith Equity Fund explaining that he would tweak the value-driven strategy for which he is known to account for the prevalence of momentum investing.

He compared trying to buy undervalued stocks to “trying to catch the proverbial falling knife”. “All we are getting is cut fingers as their downward share price spiral is exacerbated by the index momentum enhancement effect,” he said.

Momentum investing’s current outperformance is so strong, that it is forcing seasoned investors to change their approach.

It’s particularly important to understand the concept as it’s not an easy strategy to replicate.

“It’s wonderfully simple to apply but also fraught with risks if you blindly follow what you see as a trend without understanding what you are actually buying and the risks involved,” said Rob Morgan, chief investment analyst at Charles Stanley Direct.

What is momentum investing?

Momentum investing effectively means buying stocks or other assets that are increasing in price.

“Momentum investing is simple in principle,” said Angeline Ong, senior investment analyst at IG. “Buy what's already going up or sell (short) what's already going down. It's built on the idea that any asset that has performed well over the recent past tends to keep performing well in the near term, and vice versa.”

A basic approach might be to rank stocks or funds by their returns over a given time period (three, six or 12 months) and buy whichever has generated the greatest returns.

“Some investors are probably doing it without even thinking about it, by buying a share or fund they notice is performing well,” said Charles Stanley Direct’s Morgan.

More advanced momentum investors might make use of technical analysis tools which measure patterns in how an asset is trading.

For example, the relative strength index measures the speed and change of an asset’s price and quantifies this as a number between 0 and 100; a reading of 50 or above indicates positive momentum (though a reading above 70 is usually interpreted as a sign that a stock is overbought and that its price might soon fall back), while a reading below 30 indicates it might be oversold and due a rebound.

Some also use long-term moving averages to look for signs of momentum. A stock’s 50-day moving average price rising above its 200-day moving average can be interpreted as a ‘buy’ signal; (and vice versa: if it falls below, this can signal a ‘sell’).

Ong added that momentum investing is often considered a natural opposite to value investing.

“Value investors buy cheap stocks that the market has undervalued, and wait for them to re-rate,” she said. “Momentum investors and traders buy stocks the market already likes, and ride the trend.”

What are the drawbacks of momentum investing?

For most non-professional investors, momentum investing is a challenging strategy to execute over the long term.

One obvious reason for this is that the stocks or sectors that have momentum behind them are constantly changing. A stock can go from having positive momentum to being overbought – and then, oversold – very quickly, so if you’re not spending most of your waking hours looking at live market data, you could easily miss the switch and be left out of pocket.

It can also lead to significant over-concentration. Momentum investing by definition targets the most popular stocks at any given time. If a majority of the world’s investors are deliberately targeting momentum stocks, the effect can become circular; investors keep putting more and more money into a given stock or sector, simply because everyone else is.

That can generate excellent returns when the stock market is gaining, but it can unravel quickly when it falls.

“If $200 billion market valuation stocks are moving 33% a day in a bull market, you can reasonably speculate about what’s going to happen if or when things reverse,” Terry Smith wrote in his July letter. “In 2007–08, the S&P fell 57% in five months. Next time round, it would not surprise me if it accomplished this in five days.”

“Popular momentum trades can also become crowded, which amplifies the snapback when they unwind,” said Ong – as happened with silver prices in early 2026.

Momentum is arguably better-suited towards shorter term approaches.

“In momentum investing's purest, fastest-moving form, which involves chasing days-to-weeks price action, it is seen as more of a trading strategy, not an investing one, and needs discipline and speed most retail investors may not have time for,” said Ong.

As well as it being a difficult strategy to consistently get right, Ong highlighted that it can lead to higher costs; momentum strategies require frequent buying and selling, which racks up trading costs and, for taxable accounts, capital gains tax.

How can you adopt a momentum investing strategy?

If you do want to try momentum investing for yourself, you have two basic options.

The first is to attempt to identify momentum stocks yourself. This will take a lot of technical analysis, and given the potential of the market to change in a flash, it will be time-consuming to ensure you’re on top of all your picks.

The simpler approach would be to buy a momentum-focused fund. This leaves the hard work of deciding what to buy and sell to the fund manager or index provider.

There are plenty of passive funds, most of which are focused on the MSCI World Momentum Index or similar indices. Some examples include the iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (LON:IWFM), the Xtrackers MSCI World Momentum UCITS ETF (LON:XDEM) or the L&G Developed World Momentum Factor Index Fund.

Active funds following a momentum strategy are less common. Active fund managers, in theory, earn their living by picking out opportunities the market has overlooked, rather than simply following what everyone else is doing.

But Smith is not the only active manager to acknowledge that momentum can (and, debatably, should) play a role in their investment decisions. So momentum does factor into the strategies behind some active funds and investment trusts.

Morgan, for example, highlights Artemis US Extended Alpha Fund as an active strategy that incorporates elements of momentum investing (its stated objective is to profit from both rising and falling share prices). Notably, though, the fund describes its approach as contrarian, which is in some respects antithetical to momentum investing.

“It’s not pure quantitative momentum but represents partial exposure to the factor,” said Morgan.

Investment trusts where momentum is one of the characteristics assessed include JPMorgan European Growth & Income (LON:JEGI), which targets companies exhibiting value, quality and momentum characteristics, and Aberdeen UK Smaller Companies Growth Trust (LON:AUSC) which assesses companies based on quality, growth and momentum criteria.

Investors have been warned against putting money into mini bonds issued by unregulated companies just five years after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned promotions of the risky products.

The high-profile collapse of London Capital & Finance in 2019 – where 11,600 bondholders lost an estimated £237 million – prompted the FCA to ban the marketing of mini-bonds to retail investors in 2021.

They can now only be sold to high-net worth and sophisticated investors who can handle more risk in their investment portfolio.

But the regulator remains concerned after the July failure of Woodville Consultants, a litigation funder that raised capital from retail investors through unregulated loan notes.

The FCA is now warning consumers about the risks of investing in loan notes and mini-bonds issued by unregulated companies, after it said it continues to see people lose money in these high-risk investments.

What is a mini bond?

A mini bond usually involves lending money to a company for a set period in return for interest.

Mini bonds were popular pre-pandemic when savings and interest rates were at record lows.

The rate of return is often high - even at double digits - to tempt investors and reflect the risk. But they are not regulated so you can’t get any recourse from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or Financial Ombudsman Service if something goes wrong.

Ultimately, if the company fails, consumers could lose every penny.

Nouran Moustafa, practice principal for Roxton Wealth, said her starting point for an ordinary retail client with mini bonds is a very simple 'no'.

She said: “The word ‘bond’ sounds reassuring, but some of these investments are anything but. You can be lending to one unregulated company, with little liquidity, limited diversification and the possibility of losing every penny if that business fails.”

Moustafa feels they could “potentially” have a place, but if so “only for a very small minority of sophisticated investors who fully understand the structure" and who aren't relying on that money for the future.

“My rule is simple: if losing 100% of that investment would materially change your life, you should not be anywhere near it," said Moustafa. “No yield is worth destroying your financial plan.”

What is the latest mini bond warning about?

Despite promotions of mini bonds to mainstream investors being banned since January 2021, the FCA said consumers may still come across adverts for loan notes and mini bonds in everyday places including social media, online adverts or websites promoting high fixed returns.

The adverts can look simple and safe but may be scams, said the FCA.

Lucy Castledine, director of consumer investments at the FCA, said: “Big, fixed returns are a warning sign, not a guarantee. Loan notes, mini-bonds and other speculative illiquid securities are high-risk investments and are not suitable for most people.

“Ordinary retail investors should only invest through regulated firms because if they invest through an unauthorised firm, they may have little or no protection if things go wrong. We are working hard to prevent harm, but consumers should still stop and check before investing.”

Anita Wright, chartered financial planner for Ribble Wealth Management said mini bonds can be seductive but investors should ask why the offer reached them.

She said: “Credit this good doesn't need retail money, banks price it for a living, and private credit funds fight over the scraps. When the capital is raised instead from savers through a commissioned introducer, every desk with a credit team has already looked and walked away.

“You are not early. You are last,” Wright said, adding that the only people who know the business they are lending to and can afford to write off the investment completely should consider buying one.

“Even then the deal is lopsided,” she continued. “If the business fails you lose like a shareholder, if it thrives you still only get your interest.”

The Nutshell Growth Fund invests in quality stocks from exceptional businesses, but only when their valuations offer an attractive prospective return. Our concentrated portfolio of around 30 global companies is selected for two characteristics that do not always come together: exceptional financial quality and a reasonable price. By quality stocks, we mean businesses with a strong record of revenue and profit growth, resilient margins, attractive returns on capital and substantial cash generation. Quality alone, however, is not enough. A wonderful company can still be a poor investment when too much future success is reflected in its share price.

Three quality stocks for your portfolio

Adobe (Nasdaq: ADBE) provides software tools used to create and manage digital content, including Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat and Premiere Pro. Its products are vital to the daily workflows of designers, marketers and large companies, creating high switching costs and strong customer retention. Its subscription model provides predictable recurring revenue, high margins and substantial free cash flow. Adobe can reinvest this cash into product development while continuing to return capital to shareholders.

The concern is whether generative AI strengthens Adobe's product suite or allows cheaper competitors to erode its position. We believe Adobe's established customer relationships, proprietary content and ability to integrate AI directly into widely used products give it significant advantages. Importantly, the market is no longer placing a premium valuation on those strengths. Adobe's earnings multiple has fallen as investors have focused on the competitive threat from AI. We believe much of that risk is now reflected in the price. Adobe does not need to return to its former valuation: continued moderate growth, resilient margins and strong cash generation should produce an attractive prospective return. Management have backed their confident outlook by announcing a significant share buyback programme earlier this year – further support for the idea that the share-price weakness is overdone.

Auto Trader (LSE: AUTO) operates the UK's largest digital automotive marketplace, connecting car buyers with thousands of vehicle retailers. Its scale creates a powerful network effect: buyers visit because it offers the broadest choice of vehicles, while retailers advertise because that is where the buyers are. This makes its market position extremely difficult to replicate. Auto Trader also benefits from a capital-light business model, high margins and strong cash conversion. It does not own the vehicles listed on its platform; instead, retailers pay for advertising, data and digital services. The shares have weakened due to concerns about relationships with dealers and the impact of AI on online search. We believe these concerns underestimate the value of Auto Trader's brand, audience, inventory access and proprietary market data. Its reduced valuation offers investors the opportunity to own a highly profitable and cash-generative franchise at a reasonable price.

Amphenol (NYSE: APH) makes the connectors, cables and sensors used across data centres, communications networks, industrial equipment and aerospace. These components represent a small proportion of a system's overall cost, but they are critical to its performance and reliability. Customers value technical expertise and consistency over choosing the cheapest supplier, supporting long-term relationships and attractive returns. Demand is supported by investment in AI infrastructure and data centres. Amphenol is not conventionally cheap on a headline earnings multiple. However, relative value does not simply mean buying the stocks trading on the lowest price-earnings (P/E) ratios. We assess valuation relative to the durability of growth, cash generation and the opportunity to reinvest capital. We believe Amphenol's exceptional execution and potential for growth justify a higher multiple.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Shrinkflation is rife. When did you last open a tube of Pringles and find the crisps reaching the foil seal? The gap at the top is no optical illusion – the makers of Pringles narrowed the canister and cut the contents from 200g to 165g while the price climbed towards £2.25. The result was a 118% increase in the price per gram.

Customers may see fewer crisps, but shrinkflation isn't just an irritation for consumers. Investors should see something more revealing: it can be an early signal that a company's ability to raise prices openly is beginning to weaken.

Economist Pippa Malmgren coined the term “shrinkflation” in 2009 to describe the practice of reducing a product's size while leaving the headline price unchanged, or even increasing it. Rather than risk the backlash of an overt price rise, manufacturers subtly trim the contents, relying on a simple behavioural quirk: shoppers notice the price on the shelf far more readily than the net weight printed on the packaging. It has become one of the defining responses to the inflationary era, helping consumer-goods companies to defend margins while avoiding the shock of higher prices.

When reducing pack sizes risks becoming too obvious, manufacturers often turn instead to “skimpflation”, replacing more expensive ingredients with cheaper alternatives. Tesco has reduced the pork content of its Finest sausages from 97% to 90%; Morrisons has lowered the beef content in its ready-meal lasagne. The prices barely changed, but the products became cheaper to make.

Why do companies rely on shrinkflation instead of raising prices?

For investors, the question is why companies rely on such tactics. Businesses with genuine pricing power can usually raise prices openly because customers value the product sufficiently to want to pay more. Companies serving more price-sensitive consumers have fewer options. Rather than test demand with a visible price rise, they shrink- or skimpflate. Executives describe this as “revenue growth management”, or “pack architecture optimisation”. Investors should recognise it as an attempt to protect margins when conventional pricing power is under pressure.

The reason the tactic works lies as much in psychology as in economics. Consumers are generally more sensitive to changes in the price printed on the shelf than to slight reductions in weight or volume. Behavioural economists describe this as asymmetric price perception. For a time, shrinkflation allows manufacturers to recover higher input costs without risking the sharp fall in demand that often follows an outright price increase. The strategy has limits. Used sparingly, it can help preserve margins during periods of unusually high inflation. Used repeatedly, it risks weakening the brand value that once gave a company its pricing power. Once consumers begin to question whether a trusted brand still represents good value, winning back that confidence can take years.

Shoppers who feel they are repeatedly paying more for less become more willing to switch to private-label alternatives offering similar quality at a lower price. Brands that repeatedly rely on hidden price increases risk training customers to look elsewhere.

Fortunately for investors, listed companies rarely succeed in hiding the effects indefinitely. The evidence usually appears in the accounts. Looking beyond headline revenue growth to the split between pricing and volumes often provides a clearer picture of a brand's health than sales growth alone. Mondelez's financial results reinforce the point. It reported 4.3% organic net revenue growth in 2025, which appears respectable at first glance. A closer look shows pricing contributed 8.0 percentage points, while volume and mix reduced growth by 3.7 percentage points. Revenue was still rising, but customers were buying fewer products. Nestlé's reporting tells a similar story. Organic growth remained positive as higher prices offset rising costs, yet its measure of physical demand, “real internal growth”, remained negative.

This matters. Strong pricing supported by stable volumes often signals genuine pricing power. Strong pricing accompanied by persistent volume declines deserves much closer scrutiny. Companies can protect profits for a time through smaller packs and higher prices, but falling volumes may indicate that customers are beginning to question the value of the brand.

A changing environment around shrinkflation

The environment that allowed shrinkflation to flourish is also changing. Consumers are more aware of the practice, retailers are paying closer attention to perceptions of value and regulators are making price comparisons easier. In the UK, reforms to the Price Marking Order require unit prices to be displayed more clearly and consistently from April 2026. French supermarket Carrefour has gone further, placing prominent shrinkflation notices beneath affected products during pricing disputes, while UK supermarkets have continued expanding their own-label ranges. Together, these developments make it harder for manufacturers to rely on shrinking packs without attracting greater scrutiny.

For investors, the lesson is not that every company using shrinkflation should be avoided. Commodity inflation sometimes leaves management teams with difficult choices and modest reductions in pack size may be preferable to price rises that drive customers away. The important question is whether shrinkflation has become a temporary response or a permanent habit. Investors spend plenty of time analysing margins, cash flow and valuation. They should devote equal attention to whether revenue growth reflects customers' willingness to pay higher prices, or simply the effects of shrinking packs and higher prices. Shrinkflation can be a valuable clue to a company's underlying health.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

JPMorgan UK Small Cap Growth & Income (LSE: JUGI) is worth considering as a way to play the recovery in UK small caps while earning an appealing income.

UK equities of all shapes and sizes have looked cheap compared with the rest of the world for the best part of the past decade. However, two things have changed over the past few years that have shifted the narrative significantly in favour of investors.

The first has been the demand from private equity and trade buyers to acquire UK businesses. This is a side effect of low valuations and excess capital in private equity markets, and the rate of take-outs is only accelerating.

The second has been the willingness of businesses to return money to their investors. The UK market has become the share buyback capital of the world as management – under pressure from their boards and investors, and lacking other compelling investment opportunities – have poured free cash into buybacks.

JPMorgan UK Small Cap Growth & Income trust pays dividends

The £500 million JPMorgan UK Small Cap Growth & Income trust, which was formed via the merger of JPMorgan's small and mid-cap trusts in 2024, is one of several JPMorgan-managed trusts that have committed to pay an annual dividend that is based on a percentage of net asset value (NAV), rather than on income received from their holdings.

The trust targets total annual dividends of at least 4% of NAV (based on NAV at the end of previous financial year on 31 July), which are funded from both capital and income. For example, the trust reported NAV of 373.1p for the year to 31 July 2026, up around 10p year on year. It hence proposes to pay dividends of 3.73p per share each quarter in the current year ending 31 July 2027, totalling 14.9p for the year. That represents a yield of 4.1% on the current price of 364p.

This approach makes a lot of sense in the world of small and mid caps, where reinvesting for growth should be a priority for the underlying companies over shareholder returns. It gives managers Georgina Brittain and Katen Patel much more flexibility to invest where they see growth, not just income.

The added side effect of this approach is that it forces managers to top-slice their holdings and book the profit, which is then returned to investors. An automatic approach to taking profits removes some of the market-timing risk that comes with active management.

JPMorgan UK Small Cap Growth & Income is deeply undervalued

Still, income is only part of the attraction here, since the portfolio is also deeply undervalued and should offer scope for capital gains.

The trust's portfolio of approximately 80 stocks is trading at a forward price/earnings ratio of around 11, according to Brittain, while the Deutsche Numis Smaller Companies plus AIM index trades on 13. The free cash-flow yield is around 9%.

The team focuses on finding the most profitable UK small and medium-sized companies with the best domestic and international growth potential. Return on invested capital (Roic) is one of their key metrics when looking for the most productive businesses. The top holding is Premier Foods, the owner of the Mr Kipling brand of cakes, at 5% of the portfolio.

JPMorgan UK Small Cap Growth & Income also makes use of gearing, with borrowing averaging around 10% of NAV – a level the managers feel is comfortable given the liquidity of the portfolio. So there are the four levers that can help create value: income, growth, valuation and gearing. What's more, the trust is still trading at a modest discount to NAV (5%, down from over 10% earlier this year), so investors can currently buy the underlying portfolio on a double discount.

Notwithstanding the headwinds that have held back UK equities over the past ten years, the shares have produced a strong total return of 11.9% per year compared with 5.9% for the benchmark. As these headwinds become tailwinds, the trust appears primed to keep delivering for investors.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

In October 2006, the spot price of uranium went from $19 per pound (lb) to $143/lb in seven months. That move was so violent it altered how I thought about commodity markets entirely. That parabolic acceleration is not an accident. It is the direct expression of uranium's inelasticity when it comes to demand. Reactors cannot simply switch fuels, utilities cannot defer fuel purchases indefinitely, and once a supply deficit opens, the market has no choice but to bid until demand destruction forces equilibrium.

There is no substitute, no workaround, no patience. Uranium either arrives or it does not, and when it does not, prices do not rise gently. They spike. That is precisely what we are seeing now, and precisely why the dislocation in the sector matters so much. Every piece of the 2006 set-up is in place again. Demand is inelastic, supply is constrained, and the market has only just begun to price it in.

Uranium fundamentals remain strong despite volatility

The uranium sector continues to endure volatility despite incredibly strong fundamentals. Production is proving harder to deliver than has been modelled. There is now visual proof that reactors are actually being built rather than merely being announced, and prices remain on a one-way trajectory to multi-year highs. Uranium equities, by contrast, have endured a correction that in our view is completely detached from the fundamental story. History shows volatility has been the mechanism through which this sector re-rates, not evidence against the thesis.

The HANetf Sprott Uranium Miners UCITS ETF ACC (LSE: URNP), the cleanest proxy for the sector, makes the case on its own numbers. Over five years the exchange-traded fund has logged 11 declines of 20% or more, averaging a fall of 30.7% over roughly 46 days, against 14 rallies of 20% or more, averaging a gain of 45.6% over a faster 34 days. Rallies are consistently sharper and shorter than the slides that precede them. The deepest, longest falls have tended to set up the biggest rallies, not a new downtrend.

The 46.14% fall into October 2024 was followed by a rally of 134.60% over 132 days, the largest move in the dataset. The shallower 23.24% pullback last October gave way to a rally of 65.33%, the second-largest on record. The decline now in force began in January 2026, down 39.18% over 120 days. It is the longest in the dataset and the second-deepest, sitting statistically almost exactly where the sector's two biggest rallies began. Seasonality reinforces this too. The second half of the year is consistently the stronger half for URNM.

Delivery has proved harder than anticipated this year, even among the strongest operators. Canada's Cameco (Toronto: CCO; NYSE: CCJ), one of the world's biggest producers, suspended production at Cigar Lake (the world's highest-grade uranium mine) owing to repairs at a sulphuric-acid plant at Orano's McClean Lake mill. That episode followed flooding-related transport disruption at McArthur River and Key Lake, a mine and mill complex, although 2026's guidance holds at 19.5 million pounds to 21.5 million pounds. Peninsula Energy, listed in Australia, withdrew its 2026 guidance outright due to slow progress at Lance, its flagship project and one of the biggest in the US. Lotus Resources, also Australian, paused a key project after a fire and an acid shortage, putting its 1.01 million-pound offtake at risk.

Uranium supply keeps arriving late and light

Add a third consecutive downward revision from Kazatomprom (LSE: KAP, GDR) the national operator of the Republic of Kazakhstan – the world's top producer – and the pattern across majors and juniors is identical. Supply keeps arriving late and light, widening the deficit the market is meant to be pricing.

The lesson isn't that any single firm is untrustworthy, it is that mining uranium at scale is hard, and the deficit the market keeps citing is not going to close on anyone's stated timeline. A utility's choice is not between contracting now and waiting for certainty, since certainty is not coming from anyone in this market soon. The choice is between paying up for scarce, proven supply today or gambling on a junior's timeline, hoping the discount compensates for the risk.

Against that backdrop, Paladin's result for its financial year (FY) 2026 stands out. Production came in at 4.82 million pounds, above the guided range, with costs of production at $43.3/lb, below expectations. Set against that is a step-up in capital expenditure for FY27 to between $29 million and $35 million, roughly 2.5 to three times the figure for FY26. The strip ratio (measuring how many tonnes of rock have to be shifted to reach a unit of valuable ore) at the H pit of its Langer Heinrich mine is 4.1, more than double the 1.8 at the J pit. Credit where it is due: Langer Heinrich is the first mine in this cycle where production is ramping up. The path was never going to be a straight line, but Paladin has gone further down it than anyone else.

The US and Saudi Arabia have signed a 30-year civilian nuclear co-operation agreement, locking out Chinese, Russian, Korean and French rivals and positioning US incumbents such as Westinghouse, BWXT and Centrus as likely providers. The 123 Agreement, signed on 22 July, is now heading to Congress, and it may be the single biggest catalyst for demand in the pipeline given Cameco's own talk of 15 or more reactors in Saudi Arabia. Alongside it, America's Department of Energy (DOE) has confirmed $17.5 billion of loan terms for ten new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, with seven letters of intent already signed.

China is running 58 reactors with 33 more under construction and a fourth straight year of ten or more approvals. India keeps contracting, with a roughly $1.9 billion, 22 million-pound Cameco deal running from 2027 to 2035, plus a $2 billion agreement with Kazatomprom, likely to be followed by an Australian deal later this year. This is demand locked in through long-term contracts.

Uranium is ready to roll

So-called term prices (a gauge encompassing all long-term contract pricing) sit at an 18-year high, approaching $100/lb, on very low volume. The long-term price (a specific benchmark within term prices) is up almost 10% in six months to $94.00/lb. The three-year forward price stands at $101.00/lb and the five-year at $108.00/lb. A thin market grinding steadily higher is arguably a stronger signal than a liquid one doing the same. There are simply very few holders willing to sell at these levels, even as the deficit builds.

Yellow Cake's (Aim: YCA) second-quarter statement confirms the picture from the physical side. The company, which buys and stores uranium, is adding pounds and buying back its own stock at a 15% discount to net asset value (NAV) at the exact moment term prices are breaking out. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is now saying publicly that mine development cannot keep pace with the construction of reactors, echoing what we have seen across the sector.

Kazatomprom's own management, in a call we hosted this month with managing director Seitzhan Zhanybekov, noted that Western utilities are returning to the table after three years spent building conversion and enrichment capacity outside Russia.

Every component of this thesis is now firing at once, and firing harder than expected. Supply isn't just tight, it is breaking. Demand isn't just growing, it is being signed into law and contracted in billions. The market has priced almost none of it into equities. This is one of the highest-conviction entry points in the post-2019 cycle.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Shipping services group Clarkson (LSE: CKN) has emerged over the last few decades as a global shipbroking franchise, with its shares rising from 90p at the turn of the century to over £50 per share today. Clarkson was founded in 1852 and has been listed on the London Stock Exchange since the 1980s.

Success was not inevitable, though. In the 1990s, Clarkson and its competitor Braemar (LSE: BMS) were navigating a shipping market that had been in the doldrums for over a decade. In 1999, Clarkson reported revenues of £27 million, 30% below the level achieved a decade earlier.

Fortunately for patient shareholders, Clarkson's management correctly identified a turning point, noting that while reported shipping rates had hit historic lows, an upturn in the global economy was beginning to drive a recovery in freight rates.

The rise of China, which joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, caused a massive increase in demand for shipping raw materials such as copper and iron ore. Clarkson was perfectly positioned to capture this growth, with established hubs in London, Singapore and Shanghai.

Braemar's management steered a different course, explaining in 1999 that the firm needed to “expand activities into non-cyclical marine services” to offset weak freight rates. So Braemar diversified into more stable, but lower-margin activities, such as bunkering (buying oil storage and matching sales to ship operators). This generated impressive revenue growth: in 2007, the bunker trading segment earned £33.4 million (just under half of group revenue) – but at an operating margin well below 0.5%. Eventually, Braemar acknowledged that this was a poor strategic choice, and management disposed of the bunkering business.

Thus Braemar's unhealthy “diworsification” into stable revenue meant falling margins. Its earnings before interest and taxes (Ebit) margin fell below 15% as the global financial crisis hit, and would continue to decline for another decade. By contrast Clarkson, which remained focused on choppy, but profitable shipbroking activities, expanded Ebit margins to almost 20% just before the financial crisis hit in 2007.

More recently Clarkson suffered a 5% decline in revenue in the financial year ending December 2025, as Donald Trump's policies disrupted global trade. However, group Ebit margin stood at 15% in 2025 and the core shipbroking division achieved a 20% margin. The focus on this uneven, but profitable activity had continued to pay well. Clarkson has grown its dividend every year for the last 24 years and a further increase to 115p is forecast for this year. An investor who paid 90p per share in 2000 is now receiving more than their initial investment every year.

Clarkson is a hidden growth engine

Diving deeper tells an even more interesting story. Despite revenue declining in the broking division (roughly three-quarters of group revenue), the much smaller research division grew revenue an encouraging 14% at an almost 40% margin. This division represents a hidden but scalable growth engine where revenue growth feeds directly to the bottom line because the data it collects and sells has already been created through the group's massive transaction flow.

There are some similarities with the Parameta division of interdealer broker TP ICAP, which was identified by activist investor Justin Hughes as being a hidden gem. Both Parameta and Clarkson's research divisions sit downstream of high-volume, over-the-counter broker desks, turning transaction data that isn't publicly available into high-margin, recurring revenue. Using this by-product of their parent companies' brokerage operations creates near-zero cost of goods sold (Cogs) for their digital subscription services.

Regulation has been a key driver of these divisions. Parameta's growth has been boosted by the need to demonstrate best execution, which turns the service into an essential compliance requirement. Similarly, environmental and emissions regulations makes Clarkson's expertise and data more valuable. Currently, only 7% of the global shipping fleet uses alternatives to fossil fuels, although this is expected to treble by 2030. Regulatory pressure to tighten emissions standards is expected to force the early retirement of older vessels, accelerating the need for new ships.

Clarkson, as the market leader in valuations, sale and purchase, is uniquely positioned to advise and finance these multi-billion-pound fleet renewals, through its World Fleet Register. This database of the global merchant fleet was built over decades and contains vessel ownership, specifications, age, order books and trading activity. The group's other flagship data service is the Shipping Intelligence Network, which offers country profiles and coverage of the complexities affecting shipping markets, such as an assessment framework of the recent closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Over 90% of research division revenue recurs every year, and growth accelerated to 24% year-on-year in the first half of 2026, with the margin improving to over 40%.

Since 2000, Clarkson has been the second-best-performing stock in the FTSE 250, second only to engineering group Goodwin. That said, the eight-figure pay package received by chief executive Andi Case – over £11 million in 2024 – has met with some resistance from institutional shareholders. In part, Case's pay is high because Case has two roles: while running the group, he also continues to work as a revenue-generating shipbroker, which earns him significant sums in performance-related pay from commissions on broking deals. This is fairly standard in the world of shipbroking, although notably Braemar's former chief executive James Gundy recently stepped back from managing the company to focus on his (presumably better rewarded) shipbroking role.

Still, institutions would be better to focus their attention on high rewards for failure, such as in the UK banking sector, where there is a long record of bosses receiving high pay despite failing to create value, or even destroying it. The recent outperformance of the banking sector has been caused by a rising tide of supportive macroeconomic variables that has lifted all boats. Conversely, Clarkson's 5,100% share price increase since January 2000 – versus a flat share price at Braemar over the same time horizon – shows that in shipbroking investors should be happy to reward quality management. Superior strategic choices have led to a huge variance in outcomes.

Clarkson has formidable defences

Yet one risk to the investment case for Clarkson comes from Braemar. In May last year, it unveiled aggressive plans to grow revenues to £200 million by 2030, up from £136 million in the year ending February 2026, including a commitment to hire ten new brokers per year. So far, Clarkson has distributed rewards fairly between brokers and shareholders. However, this is a people business, where the assets walk out the door every evening, so bidding up the price of talent risks a greater share of rewards going to “star players” with the contacts and nous to drive a hard bargain.

That said, at over £600 million, Clarkson's annual revenue is almost five times that of Braemar's. The larger group enjoys natural advantages that flow to the market leader, such as superior liquidity and the ability to spread fixed technology costs across a larger revenue base. Clarkson handles roughly one in every ten global shipping fixtures, which has created a powerful network effect: shipowners gravitate to where the most charterers are, and charterers go where the selection of tonnage is widest. Each successful deal reinforces this position.

Braemar seems to have learnt from past mistakes and has combined its revenue goal with a target underlying operating profit margin of 15%. So its expansion is unlikely to spark a fierce bidding war for top talent.

Following the decline in revenue last year, Clarkson's most recent half year to June was much stronger. Higher demand for chartering services and elevated freight rates provided a helpful climate as it tends to earn a percentage commission on commercial activities. A buoyant market in shipping vessels' valuation, combined with strong demand for derivatives instruments to help manage risk, also proved helpful.

Revenues jumped 39% to over £414 million in the first half, at a 14% Ebit margin, excluding acquisition-related costs. The company said in August that it expects the full-year outcome to be “materially ahead of market expectations”. Broker Zeus has raised its earnings per share forecast by 14% for both 2026 and 2027 to 279p and 310p. That puts the group on 17 times this year's forecast and 16 times the following year. Clarkson also enjoys a strong balance sheet, with £155 million of cash at the end of June.

For comparison, Braemar trades on just nine times forecasts for the current financial year and seven times the following year, with a net debt position of just under £3 million at their February year end. At 225p, Braemar's share price has trod water for 20 years. The valuation looks attractive if management can deliver on revenue and margin aspirations. Yet after many years of disappointing performance – revenue last year was below the level achieved in 2016 – investors' scepticism is understandable.

Thus Braemar is a turnaround situation, looking to follow the success of its larger rival. Meanwhile, Clarkson has become essential shipping infrastructure, where “key-man risk” of brokers leaving is mitigated by the group's franchise and data subscription recurring revenue. While Clarkson's offices are located in St Katharine Docks, just beyond London's old Roman walls, the long-established broker has formidable defences to protect its market position.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The UK’s investment trusts are declining in popularity with the country’s investor base, new research suggests.

Financial consumer site Boring Money’s latest investment trust report shows that investment trust ownership among UK investors has fallen to its lowest level since the company started tracking adoption in 2021 – falling from 12% to 9% in the last year.

The report, based on four surveys (the largest of which included 6,000 nationally representative UK adults) reveals a stark fall in the percentage of 35-54 year-olds owning investment trusts, where adoption fell from 12% to 7% over the last six years.

“[US activist hedge fund] Saba created upheaval in the industry and highlighted the importance of the retail investor vote,” said Holly Mackay, CEO of Boring Money. “This coupled with declining levels of adoption is a real call to action for boards [of investment trusts] to engage with the customers of tomorrow, and demonstrate the role that trusts have to play in an investor’s portfolio.”

A lower percentage of UK investors holding investment trusts doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve become less popular in absolute terms though, given there are now more UK investors than ever before.

But Boring Money also noted a decline in the proportion of assets held in investment trusts on individual investment platforms, indicating ownership is declining in absolute terms too.

Why is investment trust ownership declining?

Investors appear to be favouring simpler and often cheaper vehicles over investment trusts.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have surged in popularity recently: over the last six years, ETF ownership has nearly quadrupled from 5% to almost 20%.

“ETFs feel easier for people to compute,” said Mackay. “They have become synonymous with cheap and easy. Investment trusts are still thought to be difficult and old-fashioned.

“Trusts are trying to compete with 60 page PDFs and complex explainers and this misses a key point about getting through to retail investors,” she continued. “Beyond the hobbyists, most people want to spend as little time on this as possible. It’s about delivering key messages succinctly and with limited space.”

Boring Money’s research suggests that 45% of today’s investment trust holders have held their investment trusts for 10 years or more, compared to 18% of ETF holders, and that eight times as many investors bought ETFs for the first time in the last year compared to investment trusts.

“To try to capture some of the growth going to ETF providers, investment trusts have more to do to communicate their benefits to a broader investor base which has higher expectations for simple, compelling messaging and competitive price points,” Mackay said.

How is the investment trust industry responding?

The investment trust industry is moving to address this communication deficit.

“Investment trusts have fantastic benefits for investors of all ages, but we need to make sure that more people are aware of them,” said Nick Britton, research director at the Association of Investment Companies (AIC), an industry body representing UK investment trusts.

The AIC is launching a campaign aimed at raising awareness of investment trusts among investors aged 25-44. This is an interesting demographic to target: Boring Money noted that investment trust ownership among under-35s has increased from 7% to 9% since 2021, in contrast to the age group immediately above it, where adoption fell

“Investment trusts are particularly suitable for younger investors because their investment horizon is long and they can back exciting companies like SpaceX at an early stage of their development,” said Britton. “They can also use gearing [borrowing] to enhance returns and offer access to many parts of the market that other kinds of funds can’t reach.”

Stamp duty land tax is another cost to factor into the equation when buying property in England or Northern Ireland.

It is applied at different rates depending on the value of the property, if the home you’re buying costs more than £125,000. That threshold rises to £300,000 for first-time buyers purchasing a home worth £500,000 or less.

The average house price in England was £292,095 as of May 2026, according to the latest data from HM Land Registry, meaning the typical mover would pay around £4,604 in stamp duty.

A first-time buyer would not have to pay any stamp duty for the same transaction.

Regional house price variation means the average amount of stamp duty is drastically different depending on where in England you are moving to, with analysis of home buyer enquiries across England in the first half of 2026 by Zoopla showing a stark North-South divide.

Around half of all first-time buyers in London, the East of England, and South East England have to pay stamp duty, compared to just 10% in the north of England as property prices in these regions eclipse those in the north.

The story is not much different for home movers. While almost all of those buying their next home in England have to pay some stamp duty, the amount they pay on average is very different.

The amount you’ll pay in the north of England will typically be between £1,500 and £2,200, while in some parts of the south, stamp duty bills can rise to almost ten times this.

Richard Donnell, executive director at Zoopla, said: “For home movers, stamp duty is a near-certain cost wherever you live – and in Southern England it runs to five figures. Six in ten property purchases are made by existing homeowners.

“When the cost of moving becomes a meaningful friction, some of those moves don't happen, especially with lower levels of house price inflation in recent years across southern England.”

The analysis did not include the data for buyers in Northern Ireland.

Average stamp duty costs by region for first-time buyers

If you’re buying your first home and it’s worth £500,000 or less, you could benefit from first-time buyers' relief. This means you’d only pay stamp duty on any portion of the property value over £300,000, at a rate of 5%.

The difference in house prices across regions means many first-time buyers in certain parts of England may not need to pay any stamp duty on their first home, or pay relatively low amounts.

Only 2.1% of first-time buyers face a stamp duty bill in the North East, Zoopla said, and for those who do, the median stamp duty bill is £3,750.

In Yorkshire and the Humber, 3.8% of first-time buyers pay stamp duty. This rises to 6.2% of first-time buyers in the North West and 9.3% in the West Midlands. The median bill in all of these locations for first-time buyers is £2,500.

As average house prices in London, the East and South East of England are much higher than elsewhere in the country, first-time buyers’ relief is less generous. In each of these regions, over 50% of first-time buyers have to pay stamp duty.

This percentage peaks in London, where around 80% of all first-time buyers pay some stamp duty.

The average stamp duty bill for a first-time buyer in the capital is £8,750, while it’s £5,000 in the South East, and £4,500 in the East of England.

Average stamp duty costs by region for home movers

Almost all home movers will have to pay stamp duty when they buy their next house – but the amount they have to pay depends on property value.

The North East region has the fewest home movers paying stamp duty, though a majority still pay it (63%). The amount paid is relatively low, though, with an average bill of £1,500.

It reflects how the North East is the cheapest region in England for house prices, as the average house costs just £163,933, according to HM Land Registry, more than £100,000 less than the average for England.

Between 82% and 92% of home movers pay stamp duty in the other northern regions, the Midlands, and the South West.

The highest average stamp duty bill among these regions is the South West, where the typical home mover will pay £5,000.

These numbers steeply rise in London, the East and South East of England. The typical home mover will pay around £10,000 in stamp duty in the East of England, £11,250 in the South East, and an eye-watering £20,000 in London.

Almost all home movers pay stamp duty in these regions too.

How stamp duty is paid

Stamp duty is due in England when the price of the home you are purchasing is above the tax-free threshold.

Home movers have to pay stamp duty on properties worth over £125,000 and the amount you pay depends on the price of the property. The table below shows the rates at which it is levied.

If you already own a residential property and are buying a new one, you’ll usually have to pay 5% on top of these stamp duty rates, if it means you’ll own more than one home.

First-time buyers have a larger tax-free threshold of £300,000, and pay slightly different rates of stamp duty. These are shown in the table below.

You will have to pay the full stamp duty amount to HMRC within 14 days of buying your property.

Even if you do not invest much in bonds, the bond markets are hugely important. Jim Leaviss, the former M&G bond guru, who sadly passed away last month, was fond of saying that “there is nothing more fascinating than a fixed-income instrument”. There is a lot of truth in this. The bond markets directly reflect consensus about inflation, growth, government finances and more, while influencing the price of many other assets.

So while investors who are willing to take greater risk in other investments such as shares are likely to earn higher long-term returns, they should still be looking at bonds.

Take long-term government bonds, with 20 or 30 years to maturity. Very few of us probably hold these consciously. Yes, they will be part of many funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs): bonds with maturity of more than 20 years are around 16% of the iShares Core UK Gilts ETF (LSE: IGLT). And you could certainly buy something like iShares USD Treasury Bond 20+yr ETF (LSE: IBTL) if you think yields are getting too high and you want to bet on them falling. Yet with yields at 5.7% for the 30-year gilt and 5.2% for the 30-year Treasury, they are not exactly compelling to most individual investors. Longer-dated bonds appeal to institutional investors who for various regulatory reasons need to hold “low-risk” assets against their liabilities.

What’s going on in the bond markets?

That said, long-bond yields have been crawling up (in some cases, such as Japan, moving a lot faster than a crawl) as institutions become less keen on holding them. There can be multiple factors behind this, including technical ones such as changes in the preferences of specific institutions for specific maturities in specific countries. However, the broad-brush conclusion is that investors are worried that high government deficits will mean high bond issuance for many years in the future. All else being equal, that's bad for bond prices (on the basis that supply will increase faster than demand).

What it does not (so far) seem to be signalling is any consensus that inflation will be structurally higher. Inflation breakevens – the difference between yields on nominal bonds and comparable inflation-linked bonds – are not moving. If we use US bonds (the deepest market with fewest technical distortions), the 20-year breakeven is at 2.4% and the 30-year at 2.2%, both around the bottom of their range for the last five years.

I find this hard to reconcile. If major governments continue to run large deficits – and it is difficult to see how they will not – they will surely respond to rising long-term bond yields by issuing more short-term debt (this is already happening) and by pressuring central banks to keep short-term rates down to make that as affordable as possible (this is starting with Donald Trump's demands on the US Federal Reserve). That seems to be a recipe for higher inflation, yet the bond market shows little sign of pricing that risk in.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The market has had an up and down year, driven largely by volatility in tech and artificial intelligence (AI) stocks. The CBOE Volatility Index (often referred to as the VIX), an index which measures the stock market’s expected volatility based on S&P 500 options, reached 35 in March (following the outbreak of the war in Iran), levels only surpassed in the last five years by 2025’s tariff turmoil and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

The S&P 500 has ranged from 6,317 to 7,794 so far this year, meaning its year-to-date returns have been as low as -7.7% and as high as 13.9%. These rises and falls are largely correlated with the performance of the big tech stocks that dominate the index: Nvidia’s share price, for example, has ranged from lows of $164.27 to highs of $236.54 in the year so far.

Some investors like volatility, but it isn’t for everyone. According to the latest fund flow data from the Investment Association, an industry body representing UK asset managers, retail investors put more money into funds during June than any month since August 2021 – but this was largely directed towards defensive strategies such as bonds or cash-like assets.

“Exciting investments have an unfortunate habit of becoming expensive precisely because everyone finds them exciting,” said Simon Skinner, head of investments at asset manager Orbis Investments. “By the time the story feels obvious, the crowd has usually arrived and a great deal of optimism is already reflected in the price.”

So-called ‘boring’ investments – the more traditional, steady stocks and sectors – can have the opposite problem. “If nobody wants to talk about them, expectations tend to be lower and valuations often are too,” said Skinner.

There is a case to be made for the boring stocks, though, especially if you are trying to preserve your capital or generate steady income.

“Some of the best long-term investments can be businesses that do relatively mundane things exceptionally well, generate cash consistently and compound that cash for shareholders over many years,” said Marcel Stötzel, portfolio manager of Fidelity European Trust PLC and Fidelity European Fund.

Where does volatility come from?

Some sectors are inherently volatile. As Skinner puts it: “Volatility tends to be greatest where the gap between the story and the fundamentals can grow widest.”

He points to tech as the obvious example. “Valuations often depend on profits expected many years into the future, which leaves a lot of room for imagination – in both directions. When a compelling narrative takes hold, investors pile in and prices can detach quite dramatically from any reasonable assessment of value.”

But any slight threat to the optimistic narrative – be it disappointing growth numbers, capital expenditure or returns on investment – can quickly reverse this effect, taking most of the market with it when capital is concentrated into a small number of correlated stocks.

“When the story wobbles, [investors] can rush out just as quickly,” Skinner added.

Tech is also highly sensitive to interest rates. When present-day value is calculated based on future expectations, interest rates assumptions are one of the key variables.

“Growth stocks tend to have more of their earnings further out than value stocks, because they’re growing and the market’s valuing that growth,” said David Cumming, head of UK equities at investment manager BNY Investments Newton. When interest rates rise, the present-day value of these future earnings (relative to other assets like bonds) falls.

Current levels of market concentration are consistent with several of history’s largest bubbles, which Skinner points out often coincide with periods of optimism in a few narrow areas.

“The problem isn’t concentration alone,” said Skinner. “It’s concentration around a shared narrative. If a handful of very large companies are being valued on broadly the same assumptions about the future, then what looks like a diversified index can behave like a single trade when those assumptions change.”

What are some less volatile sectors?

Consumer staples, utilities and healthcare

The steadiest sectors tend to be those where demand has little to do with economic conditions or a compelling narrative – especially consumer staples, utilities and most healthcare stocks.

“People still buy toothpaste, electricity and medicine in good times and bad,” said Skinner. “Cash flows are therefore relatively predictable and, importantly, near-term. That leaves less room for imagination.

“It’s difficult to persuade yourself that a water utility is going to change the world – but equally difficult to panic that it’s suddenly worth nothing,” he added.

“Healthcare tends to go up when tech goes down,” said Cumming. The sector is “actually very cheap relative to history now, because it’s viewed as boring, and that means it looks reasonably attractive.”

Healthcare companies are also among those most likely to benefit from AI as end-users.

Some effective ways of accessing these sectors are the Xtrack­ers MSCI World Con­sumer Staples UCITS ETF (LON:XWCS), the Worldwide HealthCare Trust (LON:WWH) and the iShares S&P 500 Utilities Sector UCITS ETF (LON:IUSU).

Financials

Banks aren’t the flashiest sector to invest in, but they can offer some protection in certain circumstances.

“As long as the economy is doing OK, financials can offer protection,” said Cumming. “Financials only run into trouble if there’s going to be a recession.”

On the other hand, they can be another source of volatility in certain conditions.

“Financials can also be volatile, particularly more highly leveraged or complex banks, because changes in interest rates, credit conditions and the economic outlook can have a disproportionate impact on profitability,” said Stötzel.

Automotive

The automotive sector is “the most unloved sector in the world by far”, according to Cumming.

He highlights Volkswagen (FRANKFURT:VO), which currently trades at less than four times its expected earnings.

“Some of these stocks are wildly cheap,” he says, particularly if the EU is able to shore up the market against competition from China.

The case for balance and value

Most of the aforementioned less volatile sectors have underperformed tech in the year to date, and over longer timescales.

That’s not to say you wouldn’t be grateful to have them in your portfolio if the tech rally reverses, but as long as tech continues to dominate, any money invested in these sectors could act to hamper your returns rather than improve them.

“Balance should not mean abandoning growth,” said Sam North, market analyst at investment platform eToro. While the long-term AI investment case remains intact, in North’s opinion, it is still important to recognise that “no theme should dominate a portfolio indefinitely” and holding “more predictable companies can reduce drawdowns, provide income and give investors capital to rebalance into growth assets during periods of volatility”.

It’s also worth remembering not to focus entirely on the sector alone when considering defensive investments.

“We would be wary of assuming that every company in a traditionally defensive sector is automatically low risk,” said Stötzel. “Business models change, balance sheets matter and even apparently defensive companies can become vulnerable if they have too much debt, weak cash generation or an unsustainable valuation.”

Besides exploring defensive sectors, Skinner also advocates attention to the price you pay as the more durable form of protection.

“It’s worth distinguishing volatility from risk,” he said. “For a long-term investor, a share price moving around isn’t necessarily risky. Permanently overpaying for a business is.

“If you buy a share well below a sensible estimate of what the business is worth, you have a cushion,” Skinner continued. “A fair amount can go wrong without permanently impairing your capital because some bad news is already reflected in the price.”

Similarly, Stötzel advocates looking at business fundamentals rather than sectors to provide protection. “What protects investors in one downturn may behave quite differently in the next,” he said. “For us, protection comes more from the characteristics of the businesses you own: strong balance sheets, sustainable cash generation, pricing power and management teams that allocate capital sensibly.”

Dave Lewis, new CEO of alcoholic-drinks giant Diageo, laid out plans to revamp the company after several years of falling profits, says Madeleine Speed in the Financial Times. The maker of Guinness and Johnnie Walker posted a 2% decline in organic revenue for the year to 30 June 2026, while operating profits dropped 27% to $3.2 billion.

Savings will be made by “redesigning Diageo's operating model and overhauling its supply chain”, with the elimination of what Lewis calls “massive duplication”. Dave Lewis also promised to boost growth by taking Guinness global, investing in neglected, affordable brands such as Smirnoff and Captain Morgan, and offering smaller, cheaper bottles to “inflation-weary US drinkers”.

Good, says Alex Brummer in This is Money. The “simple thing to do” would be to “lop off great brands for an easy win”, but Dave Lewis has gone beyond that with his “speeded-up savings target of $1 billion”. It seems he will try to repeat his success at Tesco, where he repaired supply chains and relationships with suppliers. It's also “reassuring” that he thinks Diageo has “the brilliant brands and distribution”, particularly in North America, to “halt recent declines and maintain sales”.

What is in Dave Lewis's turnaround plan for Diageo?

There's certainly plenty of scope for Dave Lewis to repair Diageo's “outdated and overly complex framework”, says Jessica Newman in The Times. For example, Diageo is still entering 60% of all its orders manually, while in India, where it employs 30,000 people, its payroll system is around “ten times more expensive than the one at Tesco”, even though Tesco employs far more people. In sum, the “unintended consequences” of operating on a market-by-market basis are “too many complicated processes and systems building up”. What's more, the decision to cut the dividend suggests that Lewis' Diageo is clearly willing to make some hard choices.

Yet boosting growth may be unexpectedly hard, says Yawen Chen on Reuters Breakingviews. In North America, Diageo's largest market, sales fell 8.4% in the year to 30 June. And luxury groups' recent rebound suggests affluent Americans are “still buying handbags, jewellery and holidays”. Diageo's problem “may not simply be price but a structural decline: Americans may just be drinking less”. Dave Lewis's overhaul should leave the firm “leaner and better positioned”, but until and unless Diageo can fix its “US hangover”, it is set to keep its “groggy valuation”.

Many analysts wonder if the market for younger consumers is a growth area at all in view of “changing attitudes” toward drink and the rapid spread of weight-loss drugs, says Richard Hunter on Interactive Investor. Nevertheless, the market's reaction to Diageo's “resolute” update was “immediate, positive and one of relief for an overdue transformation”, suggesting that the group's “longstanding supporters” are still inclined to give the new management the benefit of the doubt.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

While equity markets stuttered in July – the MSCI World Index, which represents 85% of the total market capitalisation of each developed market in the world, grew just 0.5% during the month – flows into exchange-traded products were strong.

European-listed exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and exchange-traded commodities (ETCs) attracted flows of €47.3 billion in July, up 28.5% from €36.8 billion the previous month, according to data from investment research firm Morningstar.

Fund flows can give a broad indication of how investors feel about the market at a given point of time, though there is of course no guarantee that this will continue in future.

Among European-listed ETFs, those focusing on equity investing attracted €34.2 billion in flows during July, up from €29.9 billion in June. ETFs tracking bonds attracted €8.8 billion in July, up from €7.7 billion in June.

“Despite a softer month for US equities, money continued to flow into both global and US-focused equity [ETFs], reflecting investor conviction in the long-term artificial intelligence and technology-led growth story,” said Jose Garcia-Zarate, senior principal at Morningstar. “Investors largely treated market weakness as a buying opportunity, continuing to allocate capital to growth-oriented exposures.”

While ETF flows remained strong in aggregate, there was some divergence between the allocations towards different styles of fund.

The Europe-listed ETF sectors that saw the biggest inflows and outflows

Blend equity ETFs (those holding a combination of value and growth stocks) saw some of the largest inflows among Europe-listed equity ETFs during July, according to Morningstar’s analysis.

Global large cap blend equity ETFs attracted €10.1 billion in flows during the month, followed by US large cap blend equity at €8.6 billion.

While ETFs that contained a blend of US large- and small-caps saw the largest flows, their counterparts that focused on either growth or value saw divergent flows. ETFs targeting US large cap growth stocks were among those that saw the largest outflows (€1.4 billion worth), but US large cap value ETFs saw outflows of €117 million.

^{Source: Morningstar Direct. Data as of 31 July 2026.}

“Interestingly, we saw little evidence of a meaningful rotation into defensive or value strategies during the pullback,” said Garcia-Zarate.

The ETF sectors that saw the largest outflows were global large cap value, which saw outflows of €539 million, and Europe ex-UK with €442 million in outflows.

Which Europe-listed ETFs saw the largest flows during July?

Vanguard’s FTSE All-World UCITS ETF (LON:VWRP) topped the list of ETFs seeing the largest inflows during July, with €3.3 billion flowing into the fund. iShares MSCI Japan ETF (LON:IJPN) came second, with €1.6 billion inflows.

State Street SPDR MSCI World ETF (LON:SWLD) saw the largest outflows, at €1.9 billion, followed by Xtrackers S&P 500 Swap ETF (LON:XSXG) which registered €981 million outflows.

^{Source: Morningstar Direct. Data as of 31 July 2026.}

What happened to global ETP flows in July?

The data on flows into European-listed ETFs and ETCs was consistent with the picture that global ETP flows painted.

Global flows into exchange-traded products (ETPs) – which includes ETFs and ETCs – hit a record $362.6 billion in July, according to data from asset manager BlackRock.

BlackRock’s analysis showed that flows into equity ETPs rose for the third consecutive month to $64.8 billion.

Tech-focused ETPs saw higher flows than any other sector. Flows into tech ETPs reached a record $60.5 billion in July, smashing through the previous record of $32.0 billion, set the previous month.

Younger people faced with historically high housing prices and ongoing cost of living pressures may be hoping an inheritance will help them out.

Nearly one in four (23%) Gen Z (born between 1997 and 2012) say they are not prioritising retirement saving because they expect to inherit money or property.

This view is also common among Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996), with one in five (20%) of this generation saying the same, according to a Standard Life survey of 6,000 people conducted in June 2026.

Grandparents who have benefited from house price increases and may be enjoying bumper pensions, and who are worried for their younger loved ones’ financial prospects, could feel pressure to give away their homes to grandkids now, in an attempt to reduce the risk of them paying inheritance tax later.

Experts have said it’s trickier than just handing over the keys, however.

How much can I give away free of inheritance tax?

To quickly recap on the key inheritance tax rules – every homeowner has two inheritance tax-free allowances.

You have a nil rate band of £325,000 and there is a residence nil rate band of up to £175,000 when a family home is passed to direct descendants, including grandchildren, though this second allowance is tapered for estates above £2 million.

Married couples and civil partners can inherit each other’s allowances, meaning up to £1 million may be passed on by them after death before IHT becomes due.

Also, most gifts a person makes during their lifetime are exempt from inheritance tax – but the person must survive for seven years after giving it (these are known as ‘potentially exempt transfers’).

A gift can be money, property or possessions – anything that has value. A gift must reduce the value of the estate and you must include any loss incurred as part of the gift. For example, if a person sells their house to a child for less than it’s worth, the difference in value counts as a gift.

An outright gift is where value is transferred to another individual without conditions.

Losing legal control

Many people assume giving away their home – often one of their most valuable assets – is a straightforward way of reducing inheritance tax. The reality is often far more complicated.

Legally there are a number of things to consider.

When the original owner gives their property away, they lose legal control over it. This is true whether the original owner remains living in the property or not – but several factors mean it can be especially tricky if they continue to reside there.

Laura Walkley, partner and head of the private client department at TWM Solicitors LLP, said: “Even where there is complete trust between family members, circumstances and relationships can change over time. In a worst-case scenario, the original owner could lose their home.”

Four key scenarios could put the person giving away the property at risk, Walkley pointed out; disputes, debt, divorce and death.

1. The donor and recipient could fall out, and the recipient may decide to evict the original owner or to sell the property.
2. The recipient might also need to borrow against it, exposing the property to claims by creditors.
3. If the recipient goes through a divorce, the property may be vulnerable to claims for financial provision by a former spouse.
4. If the recipient dies before the person who made the gift, unless suitable arrangements are put in place, the property will pass under the recipient’s will or intestacy, potentially ending up in the hands of people the donor never intended to benefit.

Inheritance tax property gifting rules

Giving your home away while continuing to live in it is also one of the biggest inheritance tax misconceptions – it doesn’t automatically mean your loved one avoids inheritance tax.

Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at financial advice firm Quilter, said: “If you gift a property but still benefit from living there, HMRC will treat it as a 'gift with reservation of benefit'. This means the property would still be counted as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes.”

To avoid this, you would typically need to pay a full market rent to the new owner, plus your share of the bills. This creates its own complications and could generate an income tax liability for the recipient, who would also need to declare that rent on their annual tax returns.

You do not have to pay rent to the new owners if you only give away part of your property and the new owners also live at the property.

There’s normally no inheritance tax to pay if you move out and live for another seven years.

Capital gains tax problem

Grandparents with more than one property who want to give one away to a grandchild could also find there may be capital gains tax implications if the property is not the giver’s main residence.

Only a person’s private residence is exempt from capital gains tax. “So, if I gifted a buy-to-let, for example, the gift is viewed as a disposal for CGT purposes that realises any gain made,” said Moore.

This triggers an immediate CGT bill. Even if you receive no money for the property, you must pay capital gains tax on the difference between what you originally paid for it and what it is worth on the day you gift it.

Care costs

Permanently giving away your home could also create headaches if you come to need care in later life. You won’t be able to sell your home or use equity release, for example, to unlock some of your housing wealth to pay for your care.

At the same time, under deprivation of assets rules, local authorities could scrutinise gifts made later in life if they believe assets have been transferred primarily to avoid care costs.

Consequently the council may be reluctant to pay for your needs or even demand money back from the grandchild you gave the property to.

Alternatives to grandparents giving away property

Before taking the huge step of giving away your home (or another property) to your grandchildren, it is important to establish whether gifting property before death is even necessary.

Tom Kimche, financial adviser at Netwealth, said: “Outside of property, there are several other ways to gift which could be a better fit during your lifetime.

“For example, beyond the annual £3,000 gifting exemption, gifts from surplus income can often fall outside the scope of IHT if properly structured and documented.

“Larger gifts can also leave your estate for IHT purposes if you survive for seven years after making them.”

Structure is another important consideration. Gifts can be made directly or through relatively simple structures such as bare trusts.

“If you would like greater control and asset protection, discretionary trusts or Family Investment Companies (FICs) may be worth considering, though they add cost, complexity and additional tax considerations,” said Kimche.

Retail investors were in a buoyant mood early in the summer as new figures show they poured £3.8 billion into investment funds during June, the highest monthly total since August 2021.

The data from The Investment Association (IA) – an industry body representing the UK’s investment managers – showed that retail investors allocated £12.3 billion into funds during the first six months of the year.

June’s positive fund flows marked the eighth consecutive month of net fund inflows.

While the annual totals suggest that investors were willing to invest, there is evidence that resilience and defensiveness were top of mind.

“Investors have shown resilience by staying invested in the markets, shifting their portfolios to lower-risk strategies, with bonds, diversified mixed assets and cash-like assets leading the way,” said Miranda Seath, director of market insight and fund sectors at the IA.

Fixed income strategies saw monthly inflows of £2.3 billion, the highest monthly figure since January 2021 and up 53% from £1.5 billion in May 2026. Within fixed income strategies, funds focused on government bonds saw the largest inflow, at £674 million during June.

Despite a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran alleviating pressure on oil prices and calming inflation expectations for much of the month, investors allocated their money cautiously and equity funds saw net outflows of £1.1 billion. This was, however, an improvement on the £1.5 billion outflows that occurred in May.

Where were fund flows concentrated in the first half of 2026?

Across the first six months of 2026, equity funds saw total outflows of £7 billion – though, again, this marks a slowing of outflows compared to the £14.3 billion that fled the sector in the second half (H2) of 2025.

Fittingly given the volatile year that US stocks have had, net monthly flows to the North America sector fluctuated between inflows and outflows each month during H1, but it was the only IA equity sector to end the period in positive territory, with inflows of £1.7 billion.

Seath attributed this flip-flopping to investor unease and uncertainties relating to artificial intelligence (AI).

The North American Smaller Companies sector saw its first month of inflows this year during June, bringing in a net £181 million.

Half-yearly outflows from UK-focused funds fell to their lowest level since 2021 – with £3.1 billion leaving these funds in H1 2026 compared to £4.8 billion in H2 2025.

This moderation in UK equity outflows follows a strong 2025 for UK stocks, said Seath.

“Investors may be taking advantage of a more defensive market composition in the face of broader uncertainty,” she added. “The UK market has relatively high exposure to 'halo' sectors, those with heavy assets and low obsolescence, such as mining and energy, which are often viewed as more resilient during periods of uncertainty and offer a counter trade to investments in AI and tech stocks helping to diversify portfolios.”

Funds focused on Asian equities, though, saw outflows of £1.6 billion during H1. Certain Asian markets are highly exposed to the volatility of certain parts of the AI infrastructure industry.

“Emerging markets chip manufacturers have become key players in the global AI value chain, driving strong performance but also creating potential new concentration risks in markets including South Korea,” said Seath.

Did active or passive funds see the biggest fund flows in the first half of 2026?

Fund flows are a good way to see what investors are backing in the active versus passive debate. The data from H1 2026 shows passive strategies are overwhelmingly more popular.

Tracker funds saw inflows of £9.7 billion in the first half of the year – their strongest half-year since 2024.

Most of this demand came from equity tracker funds, which saw inflows of £6.8 billion.

Actively managed equity funds, by contrast, saw outflows of £13.9 billion during the first half of the year.

In bad news for sustainable investments, responsible investment funds also saw outflows of £2.7 billion across H1, with outflows from SDR-labelled funds shedding £1.9 billion.

Insurer Admiral Group (LSE: ADM) is among several firms which earlier this year saw their share price slump because of fears that AI-powered rivals could capture most (or all) of their business. However, since then many of these stocks have bounced back, with investors deciding that such fears are overhyped.

Admiral Group's shares fell by 14% in January after US firm Lemonade, which uses AI to process claims, launched a cheap policy for self-driving cars. While the policy was aimed at US consumers, it fuelled fears about AI being used to undercut traditional insurers.

Investors also fretted that the better driving record of autonomous vehicles compared with those steered by people could reduce the need for car insurance. Some analysts, such as AJ Bell's Dan Coatsworth, wonder whether car insurance will eventually be purchased by car manufacturers rather than by individual drivers.

How Admiral Group is using AI to cut costs

Yet even if such fears come true in the very long run, it's worth noting that full self-driving for individual cars (as opposed to a relatively small number of taxis currently on the streets) is at least a decade away from mass adoption. In any case, Admiral Group has itself been using AI and digitisation to cut costs and give it an advantage over its main rivals.

Earlier this year, Admiral Group also bought Flock, a technology firm it had been working with. The purchase gives it full access to, and ownership of, Flock's technology, which uses AI and telemetry (the process of collecting data from remote sources and passing it to a receiving system) to judge how well people are driving.

Meanwhile, Admiral Group has been taking steps to diversify its business by branching out into household, travel and pet insurance. While these areas currently make up only a small proportion of overall profit, they are growing at an extremely rapid rate, which should improve the group's medium-term prospects.

Meanwhile, sales almost tripled between 2021 and 2025, and are forecast to keep growing over the next few years. While profits have been more volatile, they have increased since 2021. Admiral boasts strong margins, with a double-digit return on capital employed. This has allowed the group to raise dividends to record levels. The stock's valuation also looks attractive at 15 times expected 2027 earnings and a dividend yield of just under 5%.

Admiral Group's share price has plenty of momentum behind it, having beaten the overall UK market over the last one, three and six months. It is trading well above its 50- and 200-day moving averages, and has also been one of the best performers in the FTSE 100 over the last six months. I suggest that you go long at the current price of 3,772p at £1 per 1p. I would put the stop-loss at 2,800p, which would give you a total downside of £972.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

European stocks are set to get a boost. As the world becomes more divided and unpredictable, countries are shifting their focus back to producing things at home. They are realising that while there are benefits to global trade and specialisation, relying too heavily on other nations leaves them exposed. Europe, which embraced globalisation and trade, is left vulnerable.

The continent has therefore set up several major funding programmes to strengthen its own defence, infrastructure and industrial capacity. We call this the “Making Europe Great Again” agenda. It is creating a potential tailwind for European stocks.

Three European stocks to watch

Ørsted A/S (Copenhagen: ORSTED) is the largest energy company in Denmark and a global leader in the development, construction and operation of wind farms. It boasts the offshore wind farm with the highest capacity in the world. Renewables are seen by Europe as a solution to its dependence on gas imports.

Despite a long-term decline in the share price, Ørsted has seen key financial metrics, including profit and cash flow, increase since 2021. The consensus among analysts is that Ørsted has become a buying opportunity, with increasing levels of cash and tradeable assets improving the company's financial health.

Ørsted is engaged in projects spanning multiple continents, notably the completion of Hornsea 3, a wind farm in the North Sea off the UK coast that could provide continuous power to 3.3 million homes. This project and others are eligible for support from €800 million of a €1.2 billion loan facility from the European Investment Bank that remains outstanding.

Our second European stock is ACS Group, or Actividades de Construcción y Servicios (Madrid: ACS), a Spanish company providing construction and related services. ACS recently took the decision to increase its overall exposure to digital infrastructure, taking a primary role in a partnership with BlackRock under which the €2 billion joint venture will collaborate to build a data-centre pipeline with a capacity of 1.7 gigawatts.

ACS has made clear that this is one step on the journey towards establishing the firm as a global leader in the digital-infrastructure sector. This shift away from third-party contracted involvement to ownership and development of data-centre facilities clearly displays ACS's desire to insert itself into this rapidly expanding industry. ACS has predicted that the firm's overall income from digital infrastructure will rise from €10 billion in 2025 to €25 billion in 2030, suggesting scope for considerable returns in future.

Thales (Paris: HO) is a French company providing various offerings in the defence, aerospace and digital-security sectors. Defence makes up 50% of sales. Long-term public-procurement contracts predominate in this area, making Thales a potential recipient of Europe's defence-spending splurge.

Thales has signed both public and private partnerships, including making a 60% jump in the production of radar antennas for the Netherlands' Ministry of Defence and a deal with Renault to produce 1,000 units per month of the Thales Toutatis loitering-munitions drone, up from 150 per year.

The second agreement is particularly noteworthy. The use of drones in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has brought the concept into the mainstream. From early 2024 through to summer of the following year the number of drones used in the conflict increased 1,000%. With European countries realising their own need to catch up in this regard, Thales appears to be positioning itself to follow this trend upwards.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

“Baby-faced” billionaire Yang Zhilin recently dealt the biggest shock to Western markets since DeepSeek, wiping hundreds of billions of dollars off the valuations of AI and chip stocks.

Kimi K3, developed by Yang’s Moonshot AI, is the most advanced “open-weight” large language model to emerge from China yet, topping many benchmarks with its capabilities “at a third of the cost”.

At a stroke, notions of Silicon Valley's technical dominance have been swept away, with its developer, Moonshot AI, challenging the likes of Anthropic and OpenAI at the frontier – prompting questions about their mega-valuations.

Moonshot's founder has a good story to tell too, says The Telegraph. Yang Zhilin is a prog-rock devotee who named his firm in honour of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, seemingly in tune with Western ideas and culture.

The 34-year-old has built a “mythology” that has “helped distinguish Moonshot from China's otherwise austere AI industry”, says the Financial Times. Employees describe an intense culture of long hours in Moonshot's headquarters in Beijing's Haidian district. “But Yang has also infused the company with his own... obsession with rock music... A white piano stands prominently in the office.”

Yang Zhilin heads to China's MIT

Yang Zhilin was born in 1992 and grew up in Shantou in the southern state of Guangdong – China's industrial heartland. Former classmates recall that he was always “unusually gifted”. Having started coding in high school, he won first prize in the National Olympiad in Informatics, earning him direct admission to Tsinghua University, often dubbed “China's MIT”.

Even in that specialised atmosphere, he was known as “Yang the genius” because of the way he managed to balance elite academic performance with his musical interests. He was a drummer in a campus band called Splay, organised music competitions and gained a reputation for being “romantic and idealistic”. Some reports suggest that he switched his undergraduate degree from thermal engineering to computer science, having been inspired by a Haruki Murakami novel.

In 2015, Yang Zhilin completed his PhD at Carnegie Mellon University, where he studied under AI gurus Ruslan Salakhutdinov and William Cohen, worked at Google Brain and Meta, and founded a retailer-focused start-up, Recurrent AI, before returning to China in 2019.

In 2023, he co-founded Moonshot AI with Tsinghua University classmates. “Recurrent AI taught him how to woo investors and scale a business,” says The Telegraph. “But he learned painful lessons too.” Moonshot's early years, when he attempted to build a “Chinese-first version of ChatGPT”, were marred by a lawsuit from investors in Recurrent AI that saw him hauled before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre before a settlement was reached.

Moonshot's chatbot Kimi was an instant hit, but also “plagued by outages and... overtaken by larger rivals”, says the FT. Rival DeepSeek's successful R1 model was another “existential test”. Yang Zhilin returned to the laboratory to focus on model training. He also made the pivotal decision to make Moonshot's AI models available to developers globally.

Moonshot's open approach has enabled China to “cast itself as a champion of low-cost, open-source AI”, says The New York Times. But that openness has raised concerns in Beijing about “the potential threats the technology might pose” to Communist Party rule. “[He] may be wise to moderate his views,” says The Telegraph. “Other tech billionaires in China have found... that the Party likes its economic champions on a short leash.”

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Investors have struggled to understand Funding Circle (LSE: FCH) since its initial public offering (IPO) in 2018. The City had been looking for a valuation of £1.75 billion, but the fintech could only get away with £1.5 billion – even though half the offer was taken up by one single “whale” investor. The shares then fell 23% in the first week of trading, and they have never recovered to trade above the offer price of 440p.

However, after a long spell marred by poor returns, losses and uncertainty, the outlook may now be improving. To see why, we should first look at what the business does and how the model has changed.

Funding Circle's business model and change of direction

Funding Circle was founded to help improve access to finance for the UK's small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by connecting investors and borrowers. In its first few years, the company spent heavily on technology to build its platform and marketing to reach to potential customers. These efforts consumed all of its profits and more. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, the business lost a total of £230 million.

Initially, it started off as a peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platform connecting retail investors with SMEs that wanted to borrow. This was designed to disrupt the traditional lending market where a lender uses its own balance sheet to fund loans.

Instead, Funding Circle provided the technology that sat in the middle connecting the two parties. However, this proved to be too costly to be effective. So the group suspended access to its P2P platform to new investors in April 2020 at the start of the pandemic and permanently closed the platform in 2022.

The pandemic enabled Funding Circle to make the most of government lending schemes, allowing the business to drastically reduce its funding costs; today, a combination of government and institutional financing, heavily skewed towards the latter since the end of Covid, meets the group's funding needs.

The company reaped the benefits of its strategic shift almost immediately. For the 2021 financial year, it booked a profit of £64 million, a sharp turnaround from the prior year's loss of £108 million. Most of this growth was driven by the government's Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) scheme.

In the following two years, Funding Circle slumped back to a loss. Then, after two years of losses (totalling £40 million), it returned to profitability in 2024. This time it looks as if the lender has cracked the code.

Funding Circle is at inflection point

Funding Circle has now reached “escape velocity” after reaching a “key earnings inflection point”, say brokers Canaccord Genuity. For 2025, the group reported sales of £204 million and adjusted profit before tax of £26 million. In the first six months of the current financial year, management has outlined revenue growth of 50%, with £23 million of profit before tax at a 17% margin.

The firm tends to see more borrowing activity in the first half of the year. Even so, based on activity in the second half of 2025 and first half of 2026, Canaccord Genuity estimates a run-rate of more than £250 million of revenue and £37 million of profit before tax. These numbers are all the more impressive considering the funding environment. The last time the company was this profitable was during the pandemic, when demand was high and money was cheap. Today, rates are still elevated and economic activity is mixed, to say the least.

Funding Circle has always had a technological edge. This allows it to assess borrowers quickly and efficiently before making a lending decision. The group also now runs servicing, reporting and performance history at a scale that is difficult for newer entrants to replicate. That's why it's become good at attracting institutional capital. Its well-honed, home-grown tech does the hard work, giving capital providers the returns they require with low risk.

In the first half of the year, the company inked £900 million of forward flow agreements – commitments from funders to purchase a regular stream of newly created loans – with lenders such as Deutsche Bank. A total of 93% of assets under management now relate to this off-balance sheet funding.

Funding Circle has an edge in information

Meanwhile, Funding Circle has branched out into new products, including short-term lending. In doing so, it has evolved from a term loan provider into a broader SME finance platform built around three customer propositions: long and short-term loans, FlexiPay (buy now pay later) and credit cards.

These increase the platform's appeal to borrowers, while also helping Funding Circle enhance its information edge. A borrower that uses all of these products generates a huge amount of data to feed back into Funding Circle's lending models. Those models now have 15 years of proprietary data across credit cycles to underpin lending decisions.

As Funding Circle builds on the foundations that it has created, profit growth should accelerate over the next few years. Canaccord Genuity has pencilled in top-line growth of 50% to nearly £300 million by 2028. As the group scales its tech platform, its adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (Ebitda) margin will expand from 15.3% to 27.6% according to the broker. Ebitda is forecast at £82.2 million for 2028, with profit before tax rising to £72 million.

Cash balances are also expected to rise materially, from £101 million at the end of 2025 to £257 million by 2028. Based on these forecasts and at a share price of 226p, Funding Circle is trading at eight times pre-tax profits for 2028 after adjusting for cash, with a projected free cash flow yield of 15%. That's far too cheap for a business that's set to grow its top line at a compound annual rate of more than 20% for the foreseeable future.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Maynards, Little Sampford, Essex

A 1670s, Grade II-listed former farmhouse with a moat that runs around three quarters of the grounds. It has exposed wall and ceiling timbers, oak floors, open fireplaces with wood-burning stoves and a bespoke kitchen. 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 receptions, 2-bed annexe, 5 acres.

Price: £1.5m Cheffins 01799 -23656

Pond Cottage, Wilton, Marlborough

This 17th-century thatched cottage is situated in an idyllic position overlooking the village pond. It is accessed by a private bridge and surrounded by gardens that include well-stocked borders and a vegetable garden. The cottage has beamed ceilings, inglenook fireplaces and a large dining kitchen. 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, office/bedroom 5, 2 receptions, utility, garage.

Price: £995,000. Hamptons 01672-837178

The Mill, Arnesby, Leicester, Leicestershire

A converted, Grade II-listed 19th-century windmill with a two-bedroom cottage and a range of outbuildings set in grounds that include a wildlife pond and a paddock. The mill has a double-height entrance hall, a bespoke staircase and a glass walkway on the first floor that connects the main accommodation with the former windmill. 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2 receptions, 2 studies, balcony, motor house, 4.44 acres.

Price: £2.75m Fisher German 01858-410200

Bulkeley Grange, Malpas, Cheshire

A restored, Grade II-listed Victorian country house with a terrace with stone steps leading down to a sunken garden, wildflower meadow and a pond. It has oak floors and period fireplaces. 7 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 3 receptions, kitchen, library, stables, 9.7 acres.

Price: £2.25m Savills 01244-323232

Tinley Lodge, Shipbourne, Tonbridge, Kent

A country house surrounded by gardens that include a large pond with a pontoon, a Japanese garden with a wildlife pond, decking, multiple seating areas and an outdoor kitchen. It has an open-plan dining kitchen and living area with an Aga and French doors leading onto a courtyard garden. 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2 receptions, study, 1-bed annexe, 2 studios, stables, paddocks, 8.01 acres.

Price: £4.95m Knight Frank 020-3967 7176

Barley Hill Farm, Combe St. Nicholas, Chard, Somerset

A Victorian former farmhouse with earlier origins set in large gardens that include two walled gardens, a wildlife garden with ponds, a wooden footbridge and wooded area adjoining a paddock and an orchard. 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 receptions, kitchen, 2-bed annexe, conservatory, office, dairy, 2-bed cottage, 1-bed coach house.

Price: £1.65m Knight Frank 01935-812236

Loughbrow House, Hexham, Northumberland

This late Victorian house is now in need of some renovation. The house is surrounded by landscaped gardens and set on a small estate that includes two cottages, a gate lodge, a pond, a sequence of small streams crossed by stone bridges, a walled garden with a greenhouse, woodland and a former quarry. 7 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 3 receptions, kitchen, reception hall, library, stables, grazing land, 31.4 acres.

Price: £2.1m+ Galbraith Group 01434-693693

Puddledock, Norden, Corfe, Dorset

Puddledock comprises a 200-year-old building incorporated into a contemporary state-of-the-art house with a deck running the length of the property that overlooks the wildlife ponds. It has vaulted, beamed ceilings and a modern wood-burning stove. 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, reception, 7.06 acres.

Price: £2.25m Savills 01202-856873

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

The writer Bret Easton Ellis once said that his advice to young artists was simple – marry someone rich. The line holds true because, well, it's true. Ellis may be biased towards seeing the uglier logic of money – the way it quietly shapes outcomes while pretending not to – but in this case, the bleak diagnosis is backed up by the numbers.

The art market does not reliably sort by talent. It sorts by who can keep going, stay visible, absorb unpaid years, access the right rooms, and remain legible to collectors and institutions long enough for momentum to build. A striking statistic from the most recent Frieze London art fair is that just 7% of exhibiting artists came from working-class families.

This statistic is not saying “talented working-class artists are being excluded” (which would be bad enough). It is saying something harder – the conditions for becoming an artist are already filtered by class before the market even gets to pretend it is judging talent. Talent is not the organising force. Survival is.

Making the market see emerging art

I founded New Blood Art, a gallery, in 2004, because I could see a gap the market had not built a mechanism for – the gap between serious artists leaving art school and buyers who wanted thoughtful original work by credible emerging artists, but who had no reliable way of finding it and needed a trusted filter.

New Blood Art did not simply spot artists before the market noticed them. Rather, it created visibility, credibility and access for collectors at the point when a market around them did not yet exist.

Take artist Georgia Dymock. We introduced her at New Blood Art in 2020, just after her graduate diploma in fine art at University of the Arts London. We listed her painting Purple Pinch at £1,700. In April 2022, it sold on the secondary market at Phillips' “New Now” auction for £23,940 – a fourteen-fold increase in under two years. The fourteen-fold increase is exceptional. The pattern is not.

Across 22 years, New Blood Art has had many examples of artists first shown or supported early on, who later gained serious market traction. Without that initial platform, credibility, access for collectors and market context, would the later traction have happened in the same way, or at the same speed?

We can't say for certain that those artists wouldn't have garnered attention without New Blood Art. But the pattern across 22 years makes the question legitimate, and it becomes reasonable to argue that early visibility, credibility and access for collectors materially affected the speed or likelihood of later traction, alongside my ability to identify serious artists early.

What 22 years at New Blood Art taught me

The artists who survive long enough to build meaningful careers are usually those with some form of material protection – financial stability, housing security, helpful geography and, above all, the capacity to absorb years of low or unpaid work. Most art students leave college with debt, need to earn, and cannot afford the years that an art career takes to build. And when only a small group can afford to keep going, only a small group get to tell the story of the world. Whose stories have we lost from the history of art?

The economics of early-stage work

The second realisation is commercial, and perhaps it has taken me this long to see it clearly because New Blood Art arose out of idealism as much as being a business interest. Consider where Dymock's £22,000 uplift went. A modest resale royalty may have returned to the artist under Artist's Resale Right, but the larger gain went to the auction house and the early seller. Nothing returned to the platform that showcased and launched her.

That is the economics of early-stage work – the identification, advocacy and development that actually forms careers carries sustained cost, while the rewards concentrate later, elsewhere in the market. Yet if nobody does this work of launching serious artists, then these artists don't gain visibility. The work is essential, while structurally unpaid. My gallery has, in effect, carried a public-interest function that the economics of the sector never reflected.

Splitting New Blood Art in two

There have been personal costs, too. Sustaining an independent gallery for 22 years without venture capital, while also carrying early-stage artists' development work the emerging art market does not properly pay for, had become unsustainable. Professionally and personally, I needed to step back. I downsized, spent time in a Cornish fishing village, and began asking myself a stark question: was it possible to operate profitably in the emerging art market, while holding on to the values that made the business worth building in the first place?

What has come back from this reflective 18-month period is clarity. New Blood Art had been carrying too much inside one structure and I decided to separate the two kinds of work so both can function properly. The gallery has now become smaller, sharper and more commercially focused, with a tighter roster of contemporary artists, many of whom we first came across years ago at their degree shows. The New Blood Art Foundation is now in formation and it will carry the public-interest and outreach work, including the Emerging Art Prize in collaboration with Fine Art departments across the UK, artists' development, mentoring and, I hope, studios and residencies.

The cost of independence

The route to charitable status has been thought-provoking and demanding. It has forced me to separate mission, governance, money and power. A foundation growing out of New Blood Art cannot simply be a more worthy arm of the gallery; it has to be able to protect its own public-interest purpose, especially where the commercial gallery and the Foundation sit close together. That raises an uncomfortable question. The Foundation is being created to support artists without financial cushioning, inherited networks, or easy access to the art world. But serious governance also requires time, confidence, independence and security. An unpaid independent chair is not just structurally complicated, it is also difficult to find.

The chair needs to be competent in a specialist field, independent, available, committed, financially secure enough to work unpaid, and not personally or financially entangled with me or with New Blood Art. That is a very narrow pool.

A foundation built to address the fact that only the financially cushioned can sustain an art career finds that only the financially cushioned can afford to govern it. Unpaid governance, like unpaid studio years, is a filter.

Artists as infrastructure

The Foundation's long-term vision of permanent bases across the UK rests on a pattern MoneyWeek readers will recognise from the property sector. Developers have long used artists to warm up cold districts – King's Cross, Peckham, Hackney Wick, Deptford. Artists arrive. Creative presence generates cultural heat, footfall, interest from buyers and rising values. Then the studios close and the artists are priced out of the value they helped create.

That cycle is not only unfair; it is economically short-sighted. Artists are not decorative add-ons to regeneration. They are often the source of the atmosphere, identity and desirability that later becomes financial value – value which can dissipate once they are removed. Anchoring artists permanently, as cultural infrastructure, is the enlightened version of that trade – it holds the value where it was made. Housing artists is not philanthropy. It is investment.

This is the opportunity I want the Foundation to build towards – a structure where artists are held as part of the long-term cultural and economic life of a place. For philanthropists, developers, institutions and collectors, this is a chance to support practising emerging artists and bring live cultural energy into buildings and districts.

Artists shouldn't just be used to revive the discarded edges of cities. They should be embedded in places of existing power and value – Knightsbridge, the Square Mile, major corporate buildings, prime developments – because their presence is not remedial, but is inspiring and generative.

In an AI-shaped world, original human creation will become more valuable, not less. This is an invitation to philanthropists, developers and corporations to build with us the conditions where cultural life is visibly happening inside your buildings.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Bond markets have a habit of reminding governments that they, not politicians, determine the price at which the state can borrow. Despite Andy Burnham’s message to the New Statesman last September that we've got to “get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond market”, ten-year gilt yields remain around levels not seen since the aftermath of the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget.

There is no doubt that Andy Burnham's affable persona and savvy TikTok game are a refreshing contrast to his predecessor's stiffness. But while politicians trade in popularity, investors are interested in profits.

The rising stock of a prime minister is not necessarily reflected in the stock market. Indeed, external shocks have undone the plans of every occupant of Downing Street over the past decade. And each, whether Conservative or Labour, has reached for much the same economic playbook: more borrowing, higher spending, a larger state and, ultimately, higher taxes. With public debt already elevated and fiscal room increasingly scarce, Burnham may become the first prime minister forced to discover whether that playbook has finally reached its limits.

The public-sector finances data for June were marginally stronger than expected, with borrowing £300 million below the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) forecast. The cost of inflation-linked debt interest fell as the ceasefire in the Iran conflict pushed down energy prices. It was a timely reminder that governments do not control the most important variables in their own fiscal forecasts. With hostilities resuming, inflation is unlikely to remain so well-behaved, leaving Burnham's fiscal headroom squeezed.

As one official reportedly told the new prime minister on arriving in Downing Street: you might not be interested in foreign policy, but it's interested in you. Events overseas can force an indebted government into making unpopular decisions. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) estimates that higher energy prices and weaker growth have eroded most of the government's fiscal headroom of £24 billion.

Higher inflation creates a double squeeze for the Treasury, raising debt-interest costs while reducing what departmental budgets can deliver. The director of the NIESR, David Aikman, says that “Commitments must be funded through taxation or savings elsewhere – not through more borrowing. That is the minimum needed just to hold the debt level where it is”.

Burnham vs the bond market

Burnham might want to get beyond bond markets, but unless he can unwind the relentlessly vicious circle of higher debt, higher deficits and stagnant growth, he will be doomed to repeat it. In her first act as chancellor, Rachel Reeves tried to pay for higher public-sector pay by removing the winter fuel allowance, sowing the seeds of her own demise. Taxing jobs through higher national insurance while raising the minimum wage made employment more costly, bearing down on growth. She then assembled a smorgasbord of wealth taxes owing to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise the three main taxes. Although Reeves reduced gilt issuance, it remains historically high. The Debt Management Office plans to issue around 50% more gilts this year than in 2022-2023. Burnham inherits the same fiscal constraints, but with Labour polling around ten points below the level that delivered its 2024 landslide, reducing his political as well as economic room for manoeuvre.

There is a more fundamental problem if he attempts revolutionary change. He was not even part of Labour's 2024 election victory and, like all unelected prime ministers before him, will face complaints that he lacks a mandate to make difficult decisions. He has repeatedly stressed that Britain is a parliamentary democracy where parties choose their leaders. It is not unusual: 12 of the 19 people to serve as prime minister since 1945 first entered Downing Street between general elections. But that has never made governing easy. Only four went on to win a majority at the subsequent election.

With a fragmented electorate split at least four ways, Burnham may need little more than 25% plus one vote for a majority. Yet volatile voters are unpredictable. His strategy will be to unite the left by invoking his favourite bogeyman, the “Thatcher tribute act” Nigel Farage. Failing that, his programme itself has a distinctly left-wing flavour: capping household bills, re-industrialisation, stronger public control of utilities and a National Care Service. Politically, it is an attempt to rebuild Labour's coalition. Economically, however, it assumes global events remain reasonably benign.

But the more he talks left, the more the bond markets will push him to the right. His priorities are expensive, and his options for paying for them are shrinking. The Laffer Curve is already alive and well in the disappointing revenues generated by a tax burden that has reached its highest level in decades.

Gilt issuance remains elevated, inflation an ever-present threat and he cannot afford to lose credibility by breaching the fiscal rules. “Events, dear boy, events,” as Harold Macmillan put it, still have a habit of overwhelming even the best-laid plans. Burnham's greatest opponents may not reside in the House of Commons, but in the bond market.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Over the past five years, the Japanese yen has lost 30% of its value against the US dollar and nearly as much against the pound. The currency recently hit a 40-year low against the greenback. Now, powerful figures in global finance are drawing a line in the sand.

Over the weekend, Japan's Ministry of Finance and the US Treasury confirmed they had jointly intervened in currency markets to support the yen. Japan is thought to have sold $59 billion to buy yen, with Washington staging a smaller intervention – its first in Japan since 2011 – in support.

The move sent the Japanese yen up 3.5% against the US dollar, a significant rise in foreign-exchange terms that reversed months of depreciation. Japan's own interventions had become increasingly ineffective. America brings much more potential firepower to the table.

Why is the US buying Japanese yen?

US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has shown markets there is “a new sheriff in town”, says Katie Martin in the Financial Times. The real mystery is why Washington is getting involved at all. One explanation is simply that Donald Trump likes Japan, telling reporters “Japan's been very good to us, with the exception, of course, of Pearl Harbor”.

Self-interest, too, may be motivating Bessent. Japan's “massive sales” of dollar assets (mainly US Treasuries) are raising US borrowing costs at a time when government yields are already under pressure. His solution? “Stand behind Japan like a scary big brother” to “scare off the yen sellers.” The Japanese yen stabilised at around 157 to the dollar this week, stronger than the 163 level prior to the intervention.

The operation is likely to halt, at least temporarily, a “disruptive further depreciation” of the yen, says Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations. A weak yen tends to pressure other Asian currencies lower. By making the region's exports cheaper, weak Asian currencies cut against the White House's desire for US re-industrialisation. The administration of a short, sharp shock to speculators betting against the Japanese yen might cause them to re-evaluate the trade.

Recent market “negativity” towards Japan has been overdone. The country has several important strengths, including a big current account surplus and ownership of huge tranches of overseas assets.

The one missing piece is higher interest rates. At 1%, Japanese rates are far below those in America, which causes steady selling pressure as local investors seek better yields overseas. Therein lies the rub, says Robin Brooks on Substack. Japan cannot afford to raise interest rates because of its mammoth government debt, which is equivalent to 248% of GDP. But without the support of rate hikes, this currency intervention will ultimately “fail like all previous ones”. Despite its slide, the Japanese yen is probably still overvalued. Its rout is “a symptom of a debt crisis that's getting papered over”.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Mastercard and Visa are the dominant global payment networks. Their systems allow you to tap your card to buy a coffee virtually anywhere in the world, and two seconds later you are walking away. It feels effortless, but behind that two-second transaction lies a complex global relay. Your bank confirms funds, the merchant's bank requests authorisation and fraud systems assess the risk.

To most people, Mastercard (NYSE: MA) and Visa (NYSE: V) are little more than logos on cards. In reality, they represent a global system that allows a payment in Birmingham to work just as easily as one in Bangkok. The infrastructure is so seamless that we never need to think about it, yet it is why these two companies have proved so difficult to disrupt.

The question now is whether this lucrative duopoly, which has fended off challengers for decades, is finally facing a genuine threat. For years, critics have seen rival technologies emerge, only to watch Mastercard and Visa absorb the innovation and become stronger. Yet as we look towards a future of sovereign payment systems, digital currencies and autonomous machine commerce, investors need to consider whether today's threats are fundamentally different from those of the past. Will new technologies merely change how we pay, or will they replace the invisible pipes through which every transaction flows?

Why Mastercard and Visa's duopoly is so durable

Understanding why this duopoly has proved so durable starts with one misconception. Mastercard and Visa do not lend money, issue most cards, or sign up merchants. They simply provide the trusted communications network linking cardholders, merchants and their banks.

When a payment is made, the merchant's bank sends an authorisation request through Mastercard or Visa. The network identifies the correct issuing bank and securely routes the request. That bank checks whether the card is valid, confirms that funds or credit are available and carries out fraud checks before approving or declining the transaction.

The decision then travels back through the network to the merchant. Later, Mastercard and Visa coordinate settlement, ensuring that money moves correctly between the financial institutions involved.

The networks do not lend money, take deposits or bear the risk if a customer fails to repay a credit-card balance. Those responsibilities sit with the issuing banks. Mastercard and Visa simply provide the rules, technology and communications network that allow thousands of financial institutions to work together.

This is very different from the model used by firms such as American Express. Amex combines the roles of card issuer, payments network and merchant acquirer within a single business. This gives it greater control over the relationship with the customer, but also means taking on more risk and investing more capital. That integrated model also helps explain why some smaller businesses still refuse American Express. Historically, its merchant fees have often been higher than those charged on Mastercard and Visa transactions.

Mastercard and Visa took the opposite approach. By leaving lending, underwriting and merchant relationships to partner banks, they created an asset-light model that could expand globally without requiring the same balance sheet.

The result is a network that becomes more valuable as more participants join. Any bank can connect its customers to the system. Any merchant can accept payments through it. That structure has allowed Mastercard and Visa to expand into more than 200 countries and territories while avoiding many of the risks carried by traditional financial institutions.

Alternatives exist. American Express has built a successful premium franchise. UnionPay dominates China. JCB is strong in Japan. Discover is well-established in North America. Yet none has matched Mastercard and Visa's mix of global acceptance, bank partnerships and asset-light economics.

Uniform standards for Mastercard and Visa

This position has made Mastercard and Visa into two of the world's most valuable technology companies: both are worth over half a trillion dollars. Yet their origins were far more modest.

In the 1950s and 1960s, consumer payments were fragmented. Shoppers often carried multiple store cards, while banks struggled to process payments between different institutions. Master Charge and Bank Americard, the predecessors of Mastercard and Visa respectively, were established to create a common standard that allowed different banks and merchants to participate in the same payment system.

For decades, the networks operated as cooperatives owned by the banks that used them. This worked while electronic payments were still developing, but it became difficult as the industry matured. The member banks were also competitors, fighting for market share in card issuance and lending. Disputes over fees, governance and access became increasingly common. The solution was to separate the infrastructure from the banks. Between 2006 and 2008, Mastercard and Visa demutualised and listed in New York. Freed from competing shareholder interests, they could focus on expanding the network itself. They stopped operating primarily as industry utilities and became technology companies, investing heavily in fraud detection, cybersecurity, data analytics and international expansion.

Although Mastercard and Visa are often discussed together, they are not identical businesses. Visa has historically maintained the larger share of global payments volume, particularly in the US, while Mastercard has often positioned itself as the more international challenger. However, their investment cases are remarkably similar. Both benefit from the same long-term trend: the shift from cash towards digital payments. Neither needs to eliminate the other to succeed. The global payments market has been large enough for both companies to compound alongside one another for decades.

Their role today is often misunderstood. Mastercard and Visa do not need to replace every domestic payment system. Instead, they increasingly act as the common language that allows different systems to work together.

France provides a useful illustration. Many French payment cards carry both the logo of the domestic Cartes Bancaires (CB) network and either Mastercard or Visa. When that card is used in France, the transaction may be processed through the local CB network. Use the same card abroad and the payment is likely to travel across the Mastercard or Visa network instead. The customer rarely notices the difference because the systems work together seamlessly.

This helps explain why local payment networks are not necessarily threats. Countries can build efficient domestic payment systems, but international commerce is a much harder problem. Cross-border payments require common technical standards, fraud protection, dispute-resolution rules and the trust of thousands of banks and millions of merchants. Mastercard and Visa have spent more than half a century building those connections.

That does not mean they are invulnerable. Domestic schemes such as India's Unified Payments Interface (UPI), Brazil's Pix and China's UnionPay have demonstrated that governments and local providers can build highly successful alternatives for domestic payments. But they also highlight where Mastercard and Visa's greatest strength lies. Their advantage is not that they process every payment. It is that they remain the network connecting different payment systems across borders.

That distinction will become crucial as new payment technologies emerge. The question is not whether other systems will exist alongside Mastercard and Visa. They already do. Rather, it's whether anything can replace their global infrastructure.

Mastercard and Visa's business model

Mastercard and Visa have one of the most attractive business models in the global economy. They do not need to earn pounds from every transaction. They only need to capture a fraction of the value flowing through their networks.

The economics of a payment are split between several participants. When a merchant accepts a card payment, it pays a fee known as the merchant service charge. A portion compensates the issuing bank for providing the card and taking on lending or fraud risk. And Mastercard and Visa receive fees for operating the network, processing transactions and providing the rules and technology that let the system function.

Think of it like a toll road. While a transaction may involve hundreds or thousands of pounds changing hands, Mastercard and Visa earn only a minuscule fee for letting the payment through. Yet multiplied across hundreds of billions of payments each year, the tolls create a vast and highly profitable revenue stream.

Note that once the network is built, processing additional transactions costs very little and therefore carries exceptional incremental margins. As payment volumes grow, revenues can rise much faster than operating costs. This is why both companies consistently generate some of the highest operating margins in global equity markets.

Nobody wants to leave Mastercard and Visa's payments network

Mastercard and Visa's dominance rests on several reinforcing advantages: trusted brands, acceptance at millions of merchants, deep relationships with banks, vast amounts of transaction data, established operating rules and unrivalled global scale.

Together, these create a network effect that has taken decades to build, and explain why so few companies attempt to compete with them directly. Most new payment businesses choose to work with Mastercard and Visa rather than replace them.

A typical financial technology company can build a better app, offer lower fees, or create a more attractive customer experience. Yet when a customer taps their card or phone to pay using Apple Pay or Google Pay, the transaction will often still rely on Mastercard's and Visa's underlying infrastructure. In the payments industry, this is known as riding the rails.

Building a rival system would require far more than better technology. A competitor would need to persuade thousands of banks, millions of merchants and regulators around the world to adopt an entirely new standard. This is what makes Mastercard's and Visa's position so difficult to attack. Their advantage is not simply the technology itself, it is the system surrounding it: the banks, merchants, rules, data and trust that have accumulated over decades.

Every few years, a new technology arrives that promises to make Mastercard and Visa irrelevant. So far, none has succeeded. Digital wallets such as Apple Pay and PayPal improved the customers' experience without replacing the underlying networks.

Account-to-account payment systems and QR-code payments can be cheaper for merchants because they bypass traditional card networks. However, they tend to work best within individual markets. They solve the problem of cost, but not the challenge of creating a trusted global network for international payments.

A longer-term uncertainty is whether AI-driven commerce creates an entirely new payments architecture. If machines begin executing transactions on behalf of consumers and businesses, the winners will need secure digital identities and trusted authorisation systems. Whether that creates an opportunity for Mastercard and Visa or opens the door to a new competitor remains uncertain.

The geopolitics of payments

Still, the nature of the competitive threat may be changing in other ways. For decades, global payments operated under the assumption that financial networks would remain politically neutral. That assumption has weakened. The increasing use of financial sanctions and restrictions on cross-border payments has reminded governments that whoever controls critical financial infrastructure also holds significant influence.

The response has been a push towards greater financial independence. More countries have already been building their own domestic payment networks, such as Brazil's Pix and India's UPI, which allow consumers to transfer money directly between bank accounts, often at little or no cost. If more governments come to view payments as a matter of national security as well as cost and efficiency, they will have the ability to build domestic alternatives.

Mastercard and Visa still have a major advantage in international commerce, where global acceptance matters far more than simply moving money from one account to another. However, even if the expansion of domestic networks is unlikely to displace them from this role, they can gradually reduce payment volumes – and hence revenues – from national markets that have historically been an important source of activity.

Mastercard and Visa are adapting rather than resisting. Instead of insisting that every payment runs through their networks, they increasingly provide the layer of technology that allows different systems to operate securely. More broadly, both companies have long been expanding beyond their traditional business of moving payments from one bank to another.

Regulation has constrained traditional payment fees – particularly interchange fees earned by banks, which are capped in many countries. Meanwhile, competition has encouraged financial institutions and merchants to demand more sophisticated services.

So Mastercard and Visa have focused on value-added services. They now provide technology that helps banks and businesses prevent fraud, verify identities, secure digital payments and analyse transactions. Just recently, Visa announced a new deal to buy BioCatch, a fraud intelligence firm, for $2.4 billion.

This shift has strengthened an already attractive business model. In effect, the duopoly are moving from simply operating payment networks to providing the software that helps many different payment networks function, and keeping payments safe and reliable.

Mastercard and Visa's trust layer

Whether this strategy is enough to offset future threats remains one of the biggest questions facing the industry. Mastercard and Visa have survived previous attempts to bypass them because most innovations have changed how we pay, not how payments are trusted and settled.

Sovereign payment systems, account-to-account transfers and blockchain-based settlement all represent more meaningful challenges. Yet history suggests that the duopoly are highly effective at adapting to new payment rails rather than being displaced by them.

Tomorrow morning, millions of people will buy a coffee with a tap of a card, phone or smartwatch without giving the process a second thought. Behind that simple action, a global network will verify their identity, assess fraud risk and connect two financial institutions in a fraction of a second.

That reliability has helped make Mastercard and Visa two of the world's most valuable companies. They are an essential part of the global economy. The technology that wins is often the technology people stop thinking about because it simply works, and that may be their greatest competitive advantage.

Their asset-light models, powerful network effects and trusted brands have produced two decades of exceptional returns for investors. There are still clear opportunities for growth as cash continues to decline, cross-border commerce expands and value-added services become a larger part of the business.

Still, none of that guarantees attractive investment returns from this level. The market already recognises their quality and values both companies accordingly (both are on a trailing price/earnings ratio of around 31 at time of writing). The real question is not whether these remain exceptional businesses, but whether future growth will be sufficient to justify the premium investors already pay for them. Disruption need not destroy the networks to disappoint shareholders. It only needs to erode the ambitious expectations embedded in today's valuations.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Marcel Stötzel, lead manager of the Fidelity European Trust (LSE: FEV), isn’t deterred by claims that Europe’s economic record and outlook are just as dismal as the UK’s.

“Europe is plagued by poor demographics, low productivity and high government debt, none of which are getting any better,” he agrees. Economic output per capita is half the level of the US. But European stocks are not proxies for their economies, as they derive only a third of their turnover from Europe. “We are more bullish than ever.”

Meanwhile, on the macro front, he sees five reasons to be positive. “Germany's fiscal brake has been lifted, Mario Draghi's report on EU competitiveness promises to cut red tape, there is a large savings rate to be mobilised, Europe is spending more on defence and European integration is tightening.” As a result, “the GDP growth gap will not continue to widen” and “we are overweight domestic Europe for the first time.”

A disappointing year for Fidelity European Trust

Following its merger with Henderson European Trust nearly a year ago, Fidelity European Trust has become a £2.2 billion investment trust. It trades at a modest 5% discount to net asset value (NAV) and yields 2.3%. However, while performance has been excellent since its 1991 launch (13.2% per year against 9.5% for the FTSE Europe ex-UK index), it has lagged the index by 10% over one year, 13% over three, and 12% over five. This puts it 11%, 31% and 33% respectively behind JP Morgan European Growth & Income (LSE: JEGI).

In the latest annual report, Sam Morse, fellow portfolio manager, attributed last year's disappointing performance to “limited exposure to defence stocks, holdings in Novo Nordisk, chemical producer Symrise and software company SAP”. Novo Nordisk soared on the back of its weight-loss drug Wegovy, but then crashed 75% from its mid 2024 high before a slight recent recovery. SAP has suffered from concerns that AI will disrupt the businesses of established software companies. JP Morgan European Growth & Income had been more nimble, selling SAP early last year and Novo Nordisk the year before.

Still, every manager has a bad year, and Stötzel will surely get performance back on the rails again, maintaining the long-term record. He focuses on “companies with the ability to grow dividends sustainably for three-five years.” Examples include Inditex, owner of the Zara chain, which kept manufacturing at home and in North America instead of outsourcing it to China. This has enabled better quality control, less wastage, faster delivery and more flexibility.

Other top holdings include ASML, with a virtual global monopoly in the supply of machines for manufacturing semi-conductor chips, pharmaceutical company Roche, cosmetics giant L'Oréal and oil and gas producer TotalEnergies.

Should you invest in Fidelity European Trust?

Stötzel says the portfolio has a higher return on capital and better dividend growth than the market, while trading at no more than the historic valuation of 18 times earnings. Overall, European equities are no better than fair value, but if Stötzel is right and economic growth picks up, earnings growth should accelerate and investment returns continue to be strong. There would be a further boost if the historic aversion of Europeans to investing in equities abates.

Stötzel's thesis about the improving economic outlook for Europe relative to the US may prove optimistic, but it is more plausible than any thesis for the UK, to whose market investors continue to be patriotically attached. Europe is a much larger and broader market than the UK with many more growth stocks, offering managers a better choice for long-term investment. Fidelity European Trust may have tripped up last year, but it has a great long-term record, while investors in JP Morgan European Growth & Income must hope that pride doesn't come before a fall.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.

Do you dream of giving up the day job and enjoying the freedom that would bring? You’re not alone. But many don’t want to wait until retirement age winter years to kick back. Can the FIRE movement help?

FIRE - financial independence, retire early – is a personal finance strategy that involves extreme investing and frugality during your working life in order to enable early retirement and financial freedom. In theory.

The concept was first established in the US in the 1990s, and encourages a series of tactics that have the potential to allow someone to give up work in their 40s.

So, how does FIRE work and can it really help you stop work sooner and 'retire' comfortably?

What types of FIRE strategy are there?

There are number if ways you can approach a FIRE strategy. These include:

• ‘LeanFIRE’ requires strict frugality and living on a bare minimum budget to achieve your goals faster;
• ‘FatFIRE’ means putting significantly larger amounts away in the hope of a more luxurious retirement;
• ‘BaristaFIRE’ strives for an early retirement funded by a healthy income-generating investment pot, topped up with a part-time or low-stress job.

Katharine Photiou, managing director, workplace savings at Legal & General (L&G) says the approach that appeals to most people is likely the third, because it offers maximum choice for less sacrifice.

“We go from birth to nursery, into primary school, then secondary school, university or further education, then work... there’s all this structure and process. There’s no sense of freedom.”

She says the true benefit of FIRE-related movements is raising awareness of money matters.

“They shift the conversation from being one of ‘when can I retire’ to one of financial freedom. And anything that gets people thinking about their finances – especially encouraging youngsters to engage with their finances sooner – is positive.”

If FIRE taken to the letter feels extreme, she says thinking about the kind of life you want to live, what makes you happy or how much is enough are healthier conversations.

“At its heart, FIRE is about control, flexibility, choice and having options. Having a career break, reducing your hours, starting your own business or taking a sabbatical, these are all positive.”

What can the FIRE movement teach you?

Louise Matthews is an advertising copywriter who lives in North London. She stumbled upon the Rebel Finance School – which runs courses to help people better manage their money (and advocates the FIRE movement) – on Facebook.

“At first the group felt quite aspirational, and at times annoying,” she says. “People were talking about having a lot of money and it didn’t feel aligned to my situation. I almost left a couple of times. But since participating in the course, I’m finding it more helpful – plus a lot more people have joined who are just starting out and have debt questions.”

Matthews was self-employed for over a decade before taking a full-time job two years ago, seeking financial security as freelance life was looking more precarious.

“My partner started his own business about five years ago and hasn’t been able to contribute much to the household bills, so it’s pretty much all on my shoulders.

The couple doesn’t have a mortgage (they rent from a private landlord), nor any real savings besides a £3,000 nest egg set aside for their daughter. Matthews has around £50,000 saved into a pension.

“Finances-wise, we’re in quite a bit of debt, which was my impetus for doing the course. I have a personal loan with around £11,000 still outstanding (it was £25,000 so I’ve paid quite a bit off over the past two years), and another £14,000 on interest free credit cards.”

One lesson the course teaches is to try and put away £1,000 into an emergency fund before proactively paying off any debt.

Like many Brits, even though she’s only 42, she’s feeling the consequences of not starting sooner.

“I grew up with a mentality that money is fun money – ‘you only live once’ – that has made it hard to get out of debt. I used to say ‘yes’ to everything and worry about it later, hence having lots of interest-free credit cards,” she says.

Financial independence, or freedom, for Matthews isn’t about giving everything up to retire in her 40s, but about building better habits for a financially ‘freer’ future.

“What I’ve learnt is that [my lifestyle] isn’t sustainable. I don’t want to be in debt anymore. So my priority is to work hard to get out of it.”

Why investing earlier is so important

L&G’s Decades Ahead research estimates around nine million people aged 25-54 are currently not on track for an adequate retirement, taking into account basic needs, current income and housing costs.

Starting early and taking small steps beyond the bare minimum (like the 8% auto-enrolment through a workplace pension) has such a greater impact than thinking about saving huge amounts, says Photiou.

“A 27-year-old putting in just an extra £30 a month, at state pension age would have an additional £100,000. Just invest as early as you can, and stay invested.”

Alex King, founder of personal finance education platform Generation Money says it’s worth bearing in mind that, traditionally, the FIRE movement came from the US, so to beware guidance may be aimed at different audiences.

Done well, he says FIRE can deliver real freedom, but it relies on strong earnings, careful planning and navigating risks like inflation, market volatility and longevity.

Is FIRE for you?

There are limitations to such strategies.

Having a reliable income is a basic starting point. Being employed obviously helps, because of the employer contributions on offer.

It’s more challenging if you have dependants, be they children or elderly parents, says Photiou.

Anyone renting or paying off a mortgage has further outlay – especially high if they live in London or another major city.

“FIRE has clear appeal but works best for a specific group,” says King.

“In the UK, it favours higher earners who can save aggressively and benefit from higher pension tax relief, while keeping spending in check. At its core, it’s a simple mix of disciplined saving and smart use of tax wrappers like ISAs and pensions.”

So while the dream may be to kick back and relax for the next 40 years, the reality of ever achieving that looks quite different.

Recent years have thrown a series of cost-of-living challenges, with the majority of people undersaving and underinvesting.

Rules of thumb around optimal savings rates vary but assuming 8%-12% for a moderate retirement – based on a ‘normal’ retirement age, anyone hoping to retire sooner needs to do some serious budgeting.

In Australia, they suggest a 15% contribution rate, while in the US many suggest a ‘half your age’ savings rate (if you’re starting age 20, save 10% of your salary; if you’re starting at 30, 15%; those starting at 40 should save 20% and so on).

But these frameworks or ‘rules’ are blunt instruments, overlooking a multitude of factors.

Traditional retirement plans talk about a U-shaped expenditure path, with more outlay at the beginning, followed by a period of lower outgoings, which may pick up again if long-term care has to be factored in.

Photiou says: “The Australians call them the go-go years, the slow-go years and the no-go years.”

But if you’re looking at FIRE, you’ll likely be wanting more go-go, and less slow-go. So Photiou suggests a higher proportion of working life salary will be required.

Like the sound of FIRE?

L&G have kindly crunched some numbers for MoneyWeek using certain assumptions such as starting work age 22 and using the minimum, moderate and comfortable lifestyle costs as estimated by Pensions UK in its Retirement Living Standards.

Market reactions were mixed off the back of latest quarterly earnings for the US tech giants, raising a big question – when will these companies’ huge expenditures start to bear fruit?

It’s becoming clearer that the companies once thought of as a collective, the Magnificent 7 – Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL), Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Meta (NASDAQ:META), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) – are no longer running on the same track at quite the same pace, but they’re not entirely divorced from each other either.

In recent weeks, Alphabet (22 July), Tesla (22 July), Microsoft (29 July), Meta (29 July), Apple (30 July) and Amazon (30 July) all reported quarterly updates. Nvidia is due to publish its comparable financial statement later this month (26 August).

While Microsoft and Amazon’s share prices surged by roughly 15% on their respective next trading days after the results (30 and 31 July), Alphabet, Meta and Apple suffered respective declines of roughly 7%, 8% and 7%, largely due to high capital expenditure (capex) and supply chain concerns. Alphabet, for example, raised its spending forecast to as high as $205 billion this year.

Tesla, meanwhile, saw its share price fall by more than 14% the day after its results. CEO Elon Musk called this a “massive capex year”, adding that Tesla “should be spending on capex as fast as we can – spend as fast as we can without it being too wasteful.”

Apple’s share price fell by 7% following a supply chain warning from outgoing chief executive Tim Cook, who said: “We’re seeing some very significant constraints currently with limited flexibility in the supply chain to remedy it.”

When will investors see a return on artificial intelligence spending?

Rather than blindly supporting companies based on promises (which burnt many when the dotcom bubble burst), today’s investors – conscious of those past mistakes – are more demanding.

Goldman Sachs has estimated that artificial intelligence (AI) capex is around $765 billion currently but is expected to grow to around $1.2 trillion next year. And the market is becoming concerned that it’s not yet seeing conversion – or hearing explanations why it’s not seeing conversions – into near-term cash flow.

So while the Mag 7 aren’t entirely running in tandem, there are links. While Alphabet and Tesla were first to publish and therefore first to spook the market, an index of all seven companies, the Bloomberg Magnificent 7 Total Return Index, fell 4.8% the next day, wiping off $797 billion in collective value.

Free cash flow, or lack of it, was a central theme from all these results – specifically, the impact from the level of capex. Alphabet reported its first ever negative cash flow, while Meta posted a 91% year-on-year drop in free cash flow. Amazon also reported a negative free cash flow of $7.6 billion.

Chris Elliott, portfolio manager of the Evenlode Global Equity fund, which lists Amazon as a top 10 holding, said Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassey was under no illusion over timeframes.

“Andy Jassey was clear-eyed on the break-even point for investment – it takes a little less than three years for the company to recoup the initial investment of buildings and chips,” he said. “Each data centre can then host four or five further generations of servers, which have higher returns.”

He praised the business’s ability to manage costs and drive efficiencies, which have been proven during multiple growth phases over the company’s lifecycle.

“Amazon has an excellent track record of investing in projects that require huge economies of scale to succeed. This was true with both its ecommerce and logistics network and the initial investment into cloud computing.

“In both cases, its cash flow declined substantially during the investment phase, and the company was careful to manage costs and drive efficiencies. This ‘muscle memory’ positions the company best out of all the hyperscalers to withstand the costs of scaling.”

Big tech paths are diverging

The companies that look more challenged appear to have a less clear path forward.

Nick Saunders, chief executive of online investment platform Webull UK, said where Amazon and Microsoft appear to already be monetising their AI capex, questions were being raised over Meta and Alphabet’s ability to continue to invest at current levels.

“How long can they justify these increased valuations, especially when many people think all they’re doing is using AI for advertising?” he said.

The other headwind to note is a looming profitability squeeze.

Saunders added: “If the hyperscalers are massively increasing their AI capex to the levels we’re hearing – $1.2 trillion or so next year – how long can [Meta and Alphabet] afford to stay in the race, particularly when they have reduced cash reserves?”

When all the big tech giants are investing so heavily, for those where the returns look less clear, a rational view might be to expect them to reduce capex, or focus more on core products.

“But how does the market treat any tech firm that says it’s putting less into AI? It would come across like an admission of failure, which could be dangerous from a pure optics point of view,” said Saunders.

What can investors take from these results?

While earnings are always important, the wider market sentiment around AI and the tech behemoths made this earnings season feel particularly significant.

Evenlode’s Elliott said all eyes were on the tech industry because it was facing a decision tree, with investors wanting to see which way they’d turn.

“Would the hyperscalers cross the Rubicon into negative free cash flow, or would they cut AI spend? Those with a clear, responsible plan were rewarded and those without were punished – evidence of a functioning stock market.

“Long-term investors must balance both the importance of the technology with the market exuberance of the past few years, and the importance of active and responsible capital allocation continues to increase.”

That responsible tone was striking from several of the hyperscalers, in relation to capex spend.

Elliott added:“[Amazon CEO Andy] Jassey was clear that ‘if the demand isn't there, we won’t spend the capital’ and the team at Microsoft went as far as to reference the US railroad buildout as a direct analogy.

“Investors are no longer simply rewarding management teams for ever-increasing AI spend – which is a good thing in our view – and management teams are adapting their message. The groundwork is being laid for a cut, if deemed necessary, in the coming quarters.”

If you’re buying an index fund or exchange-traded fund (ETF) that tracks a particular index, there are two main options you can choose.

An equal-weighted index fund is exactly that – a fund where all components (shares or bonds) are the same size.

Conversely, a market cap-weighted index fund allocates proportionately, so the larger companies’ stock or bonds make up a higher share of the index and the smaller companies’ stock or bonds comprise a smaller amount.

If the point of an index fund is to have diverse exposure to lots of different companies (100 in the flagship FTSE index, 500 if it’s the US’s S&P equivalent and so on) then some might say using market capitalisation to allocate each component of the index seems a little short-sighted.

If you’re a US index investor, buying a fund that tracks the S&P 500 index ought to give you access to 500 shares (it’s actually slightly over that – 505 at the end of July – because some companies, like Google’s parent Alphabet, list more than one share class of their stock). Yet the so-called Magnificent 7 (Mag 7) names account for around a third of the S&P’s value, with a combined market cap of around $22 trillion.

As a proxy for the wider US stock market, that concentration is reflective of the sector’s position in the market and role in the economy. But as an investment vehicle whose role is to give a one-stop shop to a diversified index, it raises the question of whether such an approach has some shortcomings.

Ultimately whether you favour one or other approach is a personal choice but there are arguments supporting both viewpoints.

Why does equal- versus market cap-weighted matter?

The main differences are about portfolio characteristics, rebalancing and performance.

When the Mag 7 were soaring, many investors might have welcomed their dominance. But now the performance of those stocks is slowing, it’s shining a light on the concentration risk they have presented.

According to ETF provider HANetf, all Mag 7 stocks have underperformed the index for the first time since 2022.

Mark Preskett, senior portfolio manager at Morningstar Wealth, said equal-weighted indices can look very different from market cap-weighted ones, with much lower tech exposure and more even allocation across the other sectors, such as healthcare, industrials, energy and financials. He added that they tilt away from megacap growth and towards a cheaper, less profitable part of the market.

The bigger a company becomes, the more of the index it comprises, inevitably attracting more money flows into it through the funds tracking the benchmark. In short, the winners keep getting bigger, because they are already the winners.

When those companies are outperforming, that makes for a strong investment case. But when things wobble, the opposite becomes true. This is referred to as concentration risk. A broad index may still contain hundreds of names but its performance depends on relatively few, large constituents.

How does performance compare?

The growth potential can vary sharply between the two strategies.

Morningstar compared its Global Target Market Exposure (TME) Equal Weighted index fund, which tracks gross returns of the top 85% largest mid- and large-cap global stocks (equal-weighted), in US dollars over 10 years (1 August 2016 to 1 August 2026). It took an initial value of $10,000, and with a cumulative return of 130.68%, turned that amount into $23,041.

The market cap-weighted peer generated a cumulative return of 224.68% over the same timeframe, turning $10,000 into $33,360.

This stark difference highlights the trade-off investors are making. Equal weighting can mean giving more exposure to mid-cap value characteristics and less to the megacap names driving the market-cap indices. But in the market cap-weighted index, its winners have generated significantly higher returns.

Rob Edwards, global head of product & research at Morningstar Indexes said this was not a new phenomenon. He pointed to long-run evidence that suggests a relatively small number of companies often drive returns.

A study by Hendrik Bessembinder from Arizona State University’s business school studied 29,754 stocks from 1926 to 2025, a time period over which $91 trillion of shareholder wealth was created. Just 46 companies accounted for half of that total wealth creation.

Yet Cameron MacDonald of HANetf said scepticism around artificial intelligence spending, a rotation into smaller companies and mixed recent results for the Mag 7 all support the case for equal weighting.

Citing FactSet data, Invesco (which also offers equal-weighted index strategies) pointed out that the equal-weight version of the S&P 500 index outperformed its market cap-weighted peer by an average of 1.05% annually between 1999 and 2023.

Benefits of equal weighting

If diversification is the point of investing in a broad index, then arguably the breadth of underlying company nuances is what you are seeking.

According to Morningstar, in the first quarter of the year, 65% of all European asset flows moved into passive funds, totalling €120 billion (£103 billion). With more money flowing into stocks via passive funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), there’s a risk that a market cap-weighted approach ends up rewarding the winners and inadvertently not backing the smaller companies (potentially the future winners) to the degree you might like to.

That is the argument made by proponents of equal-weighted funds. They give the smaller constituents a bigger role in the portfolio and reduce the influence of the biggest names. In practice, that often means less concentration in technology and more exposure to financials, healthcare, industrials and energy.

“You’re getting materially different outcomes and sector biases, about 10 times the market cap and almost a mid-cap value as a style rather than megacap growth”, said Preskett.

Further, those smaller stocks are cheaper; they have lower P/E multiples, lower price-to-book, but are often less profitable.

He does see how equal-weighted strategies can be used more tactically. “As markets got more concentrated [earlier this year] there seemed to be some more interest [by peers] in equally weighted portfolios. They were seen as a way of dialling down the risk, almost smoothing returns in a way as you’re bringing in a much more diversified subset.”

But beyond such tactical use, it wasn’t a long-term strategy his team would recommend for mainstream clients.

Edwards also said he disagreed with the idea that surging passive flows distorts long-term outcomes.

“I’m aware there’s been a narrative for academic summaries on this but I think in the long run, the reality is that if a company doesn’t have solid fundamentals, financials, growth characteristics, they're not going to keep growing.”

The winners are the winners because they have incredibly large moats; incredible scale, cost efficiencies, network effects of their businesses.

“Index construction plays very little part in terms of long-term share price growth. I don’t think you can point to index construction or the rise of passive investing because the reality is there's always going to be active management.”

Active management can play the role of countering the momentum when stocks get too expensive.

Ultimately the choice between equal- or market cap-weighted funds depends on what you want to achieve. They’re two very different strategies. To capture the market ‘as is’, market cap-weighting remains the default. If you’re hoping to reduce concentration and spread risk more evenly across the index, that makes a case for equal weighting.

Having smashed through the record for the largest initial public offering (IPO) in history back in June, SpaceX (NASDAQ:SPCX) announced results for the first time as a public company on 4 August.

SpaceX’s IPO saw its shares skyrocket, gaining 19% on their first day and a further 25% over the following two sessions.

But by market close on 4 August, ahead of the earnings release, they had fallen to $125.33 – 7% below the IPO price of $135 and 44% below the $225.64 peak they reached on 16 June.

And the reaction following results exacerbated this crash-landing. The stock opened more than 10% lower on 5 August, the day after the results, despite some impressive headline figures. Increased spending seems to have spooked many investors.

“Part of a SpaceX rocket crashing into the moon this morning is probably a good metaphor for the share price performance so far,” said Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at investing and trading platform IG.

Revenue was encouraging, increasing 92% year-on-year to $7.8 billion. Analysts polled by LSEG had yielded a consensus forecast of $6.9 billion, so this represented a healthy beat – at least in theory.

“It’s so early in [SpaceX’s] life as a public company, that beating consensus carries little real weight,” said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at investment platform Hargreaves Lansdown. “Analysts are still trying to work out what the business should look like.”

Rather than these estimates, investors appear to have focused on the negatives, including rising costs across all segments – particularly artificial intelligence, where spending rose by $1.6 billion.

Across the business, losses narrowed to $541 million from $1 billion, and Elon Musk moved the company’s target date to achieve $1 trillion in annual revenue forward by a year, from 2031 to 2030.

The initial success of SpaceX’s IPO made Musk a trillionaire, though the subsequent share price declines have brought his nominal wealth back below the threshold.

But could there be complications when Musk, and other long-standing investors, try to realise this wealth?

How might lock-up expiries impact SpaceX shares?

On 6 August, the first of a series of lock-up periods for longstanding SpaceX shareholders expired.

Investment research firm Morningstar predicted these lock-up expiries could lead to waves of selling.

Lock-up periods are a period of time following an IPO during which pre-existing shareholders cannot sell their shares (for the most part, these are company insiders and any investment trusts or other institutional investors that invested in the company when it was private).

In theory this protects new investors from a sharp sell-off once the company goes public – because these pre-existing shareholders are, in theory, heavily incentivised to realise some of the value or profits from their shareholdings when a company lists. Staggering the periods at which they can sell gives the share price a chance to stabilise on the public market.

SpaceX’s lock-up periods expire in multiple tranches between 6 August and the one-year anniversary of the IPO.

Each lock-up window expiry provides an opportunity for longstanding shareholders to bank profits, and the expectation is that many of them will.

This usually sees a dip in a company’s share price as there is a sudden influx of sellers.

The 911 million SpaceX shares that became available for trading on 6 August is more than the amount that were sold in the IPO.

Musk himself won’t be able to sell his shares until June 2027, though he has previously said that he won’t sell his shares even then.

Matthew Kennedy, senior strategist at investment bank Renaissance Capital, told Morningstar that “SpaceX has the longest series of lock-up releases we’ve ever seen”.

In the event, there was no sudden deluge of selling when the first expiry hit. SpaceX shares actually rose more than 6% on 6 August.

But with more unlocks approaching in August, September and October, SpaceX’s share price could continue to fluctuate over coming weeks.

“[In the near term] lock-up expiries, a growing public float and upcoming Starship launches are likely to keep the shares volatile,” said Britzman.