MegaCity Lon: Are Sky Cities Sustainable in 2000AD?

For three decades the UK has become obsessed with the ‘right to buy’ and a desire to climb the property ladder upwards, a capitalist proxy for long term saving. For years mortgaged properties have been the largest asset and liability of many UK investors. That dream was accelerated by Thatcherism and fostered by New Labour, a post American ideal of house + garden + car + 2.5 kids. It is an economic philosophy which has seen council housing stock diminished and tower blocks torn down. Now the UK’s cities face over-population, overheating property prices, lack of base land supply and unsustainable rental yields. After the tower blocks of the 1940s-1960s were demolished, the U.K. is set to return to mass vertical living in the 2020s in response to an increasing population, urbanisation and mega city concentration. Building towers change the supply-demand curve because they need less land cost to build upon per capita. With a future of Amazonian drones dropping goods, just in time, from the skies, what economic benefits and challenges do Sky Cities provide and how might they change the UK residential property market’s supply demand curve?

Agglomeration: ‘a mass or collection of things, economies of agglomeration are the benefits that firms obtain by locating near each other (‘agglomerating’). The existence of agglomeration economies is central to the explanation of how cities increase in size and population, which places this phenomenon on a larger scale. This concentration of economic activity in cities is the reason for their existence, and they can persist and grow throughout time only if their advantages outweigh the disadvantages.’futuristic tower blockGrowing up I was a huge 2000AD fan, it portrayed a futurist view of society beleaguered by over-population and lack of resources. Now we are here, it’s nearly 2020. The star character was Judge Dredd who policed the streets of a 800 million Metropolis: MegaCity One. His story traced the infrastructure, civil and sustainability pressures of people leviathans. Within MegaCity One existed towering 200 Floor arcology housing projects. man with gunEssentially a self-contained city, each block is home to in excess of 75,000 citizens, renowned for their crime rates, reputation for slums and unemployment at 96%. The crime and despair of massive social engineering set in a post-apocalyptic near future. As in the comic, so we to appear to be living in an ever-urbanised world. As a result we appear to be returning into a pseudo 60’s social engineering re-run of high rise blocks, albeit privately not state funded this time. As the value of air space is only now becoming understood, is building up into the air better than creeping further into green field or recycled brown site living? Is vertical a solution to the UK’s mass flooding and urbanisation problem?

Indeed, as my think tank Long Finance notes: “Cities are faced with the huge challenge of providing infrastructure that meets the needs of a rising urban population, with limited public resources. Decisions and investments in urban infrastructure must be urgently leveraged to achieve sustainable economic growth within the carrying capacity of the planet’s systems and resources.”

Long Finance


1940s-1960s: Brutal Social Engineering:

Tower blocks were built extensively in the UK after the Second World War. The first residential tower block, “The Lawn” was constructed in Harlow, Essex in 1951; it is now a Grade II listed building. In many cases tower blocks were seen as a permanent response to infrastructure problems caused by crumbling and unsanitary 19th-century dwellings or to replace buildings destroyed by the WW2 Blitz. Post war many people found themselves in supposedly temporary pre-fabricated (pre-fabs). As James Miller, Director, and Tom Shaw, Residential Project Director, Ramboll wrote for the Public Sector Build Journal in September 2015:

“The development of new building technology in the form of pre-cast concrete frames meant that high-rises were seen as a quick and affordable way to provide much needed public housing. It is this period of construction that led to the term ‘concrete jungle’, as complex and interconnected towers with a myriad of enclosed corridors grew up to house a booming population.”

The vision was that towers could provide better quality of life and population density than traditional housing, offering larger rooms and improved views whilst being cheaper to build. Initially, they were welcomed, and their excellent views made them popular living places. Later, as the buildings themselves deteriorated due to lack of funding, crime and poor maintenance they became undesirable low cost housing. Many tower blocks saw rising crime levels, increasing their undesirability. Initial responses included an increase in council housing estates, which in turn brought their own problems. In the UK, tower blocks also suffered poor publicity following the partial collapse of Ronan Point (in east London in 1968). Glasgow was believed to contain the highest concentration of tower blocks in the UK: examples include the Hutchesontown C blocks in the Gorbals and the 20-storey blocks in Sighthill. However, on the whole, London has the largest number of high-rise residential buildings in the UK.

Post-war Britain was the stage for a tower block “building boom”; from the 1950s to the late 1970s there was a dramatic increase in tower block construction. During this time, local authorities desired to impress their voters by building futuristic and imposing tower blocks, which would signify post-war progress. Architects and planners were influenced by Le Corbusier’s promotion of high-rise architecture. The modern tower blocks were to include features that would foster desired forms of resident interaction, an example being the inclusion of Le Corbusier’s streets in the sky in some estates. The first and most famous of these buildings, also known as Cité radieuse (Radiant City) and, informally, as La Maison du Fada (“The Nutter’s House”), is located in Marseille and built between 1947 and 1952. It proved enormously influential and is often cited as the initial inspiration of the Brutalist architectural style and philosophy.

sketch of barbican

Barbican Estate, 1968. A sketch by Norah Glover of the London estate

As well as inspiring residents, local authority planners believed that the way tower blocks were constructed would save money. Generally, the tower blocks were built on cheap greenfield land skirting established cities. Although the property prices for these periphery sites were markedly cheaper than their inner city counterparts, they often had little access to public amenities, such as public transport. It was thought that the implementation of industrialised building techniques would lower costs too, as similar tower blocks would be replicated over many sites. Uniform and standardised parts, such as toilet fittings and door handles, would be fitted throughout many tower blocks; planners deemed that buying in bulk would reduce overall costs.  Another key aspect of the tower block vision was the Brutalist architectural method, popular with architects and planners at the time. The Brutalist emphasis led to the construction of stark and striking tower blocks with large sections of exposed concrete. Concrete was to be an integral part of the tower block designs; it could be poured on site, offering boundless flexibility to the building designers. To the planners, concrete was a silver bullet for the construction process – it was economical, and “was vaunted as being long-lasting, if not indestructible”.
However the vision for sky cities had crumbled (literally) by the 1980s. The collapse of Ronan Point marked a U-turn in public attitude towards the tower-block, as well as a significant shift in design and building regulations (including against disproportionate collapse). Finally, the 1972 oil crisis led to a further change in building regulation and the thermal regulation of tower-blocks. Concrete cladding now also had to insulate and tower facades created to essentially wrap the buildings and regulate heat loss. The towers of the 60s quickly became out-dated and ill favoured, plagued as they were by cold, damp, and draughts. Consequently a lack of desirability led to tower blocks being used among lower social classes. This is turn meant a concentration of unemployment, social issues and crime.


1980-1990s: The Right to Buy Revolution:

Thatcher brought in a new direction, a pseudo-US focus on home ownership and the right to buy one’s council house. Privatisation was in full effect and the old council towers tumbled. After Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in May 1979, the legislation to implement the Right to Buy was passed in the Housing Act 1980. Some six million people were affected; about one in three actually purchased their unit. Heseltine noted that, “no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state to the people.” He said the right to buy had two main objectives: to give people what they wanted, and to reverse the trend of ever increasing dominance of the state over the life of the individual. 200,000 council houses were sold to their tenants in 1982, and by 1987, more than 1,000,000 council houses in Britain had been sold to their tenants, although the number of council houses purchased by tenants declined during the 1990s. There is also a Right to Acquire for assured tenants of housing association homes built with public subsidy after 1997, at a smaller discount. About 1.5 million homes in the UK have been sold in this manner since 1980. This new Conservative homeowner dream was one of conventional housing not high rise. Tower blocks became targets for demolition and regeneration: a downward cycle. In 2015 the Guardian wrote:

“Demolition is familiar to Glaswegians. In the previous round of mass demolition in the 1960s and 70s, tens of thousands of Glaswegians were decanted from slums into new schemes and high-rise flat developments. These represented a utopian vision for social housing – complete with kitchen and indoor bathroom, central heating and mixer taps, they were seen as a solution to some of the worst slum conditions in Europe at that time. By the turn of the 21st century, many of these high-rise flats were the solution that had become the problem. The simple wrecking ball was replaced with multimillion pound demolition contracts, explosives developed by Nasa, half-mile exclusion zones and demolition spectacles for all the community to watch. But the simple ethos of “knock-em-down and build-em-back-up-again” remained the same. Glasgow has the highest concentration of residential flats in the UK and, since 2006, a quarter of the city’s high-rise housing has been demolished. Councillors, officials and local media celebrate the death of a high-rise as progress. There is little time for contemplation or nostalgia in a city that markets its renaissance through trendy bars, bistros and shops, servicing a booming and diverse cultural scene.”


2000s: The Return of the Sky Cities:

By 2000AD, brutal concrete had given way to even larger structures made from steel and glass. In March 2016 it was reported that over 100 new tall buildings had been proposed for London in the last year alone. We find ourselves again in an upward cycle. A report released by New London Architecture (NLA) reveals that, despite a widely publicised campaign to prevent the proliferation of skyscrapers in London, the number of planned high-rises has significantly increased. A total of 119 buildings of 20 storeys or over have been proposed for the capital since this time last year, and the number of tall buildings under construction has risen from 70 to 89. According to Steve Watts and Neal Kalita of Davis Langdon, most “commercial towers (more than 30 storeys) being developed are in London, perhaps because commercial rents in the regions would not support office towers and land values are lower.”

Globally the trend ‘up’ is also accelerating. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has determined that 106 buildings of 200 meters’ height or greater were completed around the world in 2015 – setting a new record for annual tall building completions. The tallest building to complete in 2015 was Shanghai Tower, now the tallest building in China and the second-tallest in the world at 632 meters. This pushed the 442-meter Willis Tower (once Sears Tower) off the top 10 list for the first time in its 41-year history. Also the average height of skyscrapers is accelerating.

“As we come on the heels of another record- breaking year, 2016 doesn’t seem like it will be any different. We currently project the completion of between 110 and 135 buildings of 200 meter’s height or greater. Perhaps even more staggering is the fact that 18 to 27 of these buildings are expected to be in the supertall range. If true, 2016 alone would see the global total of supertalls increase by 18% to 27%. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority of these will be located in Asia and the Middle East.”

Since the 2000s, mega-cities are cropping up around the world. This time privately funded for the private residential market, often built in conjunction with or appended to commercial offices, as developers again explore the concept of co-habitation working spaces. With population density and scarce land to accommodate it, building up is again the profit-fuelled option of choice. This policy is gradually stripping out populations from less urbanised areas.

Tall buildings 200 meters or taller completed in 2015: By Region. Tall buildings and skyscraper sketch

  • Central America – (4%)
  • Europe – (8%)
  • Middle East – (8%)
  • North America – (3%)
  • Australia – (1%)
  • Asia – (76%)


Tall buildings 200 meters or taller completed in 2015: By Function.

  • Hotel – (4%)
  • Residential – (19%)
  • Mixed-Use – (28%)
  • Office – (49%)

The UN’s Department of Economic Social Affairs published its 2014 World Urbanisation Prospects report and noted: “Globally, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas, with 54 per cent of the world’s population residing in urban areas in 2014. In 1950, 30 per cent of the world’s population was urban, and by 2050, 66 per cent of the world’s population is projected to be urban. Today, the most urbanised regions include Northern America (82 per cent living in urban areas in 2014), Latin America and the Caribbean (80 per cent), and Europe (73 per cent). In contrast, Africa and Asia remain mostly rural, with 40 and 48 per cent of their respective populations living in ur- ban areas. All regions are expected to urbanise further over the coming decades. Africa and Asia are urbanising faster than the other regions and are projected to become 56 and 64 per cent urban, respectively, by 2050.”


The first MegaCity? Tokyo or Bust?

Tokyo is the world’s largest city with an agglomeration of 38 million inhabitants, followed by Delhi with 25 million, Shanghai with 23 million, and Mexico City, Mumbai and São Paulo, each with around 21 million inhabitants. By 2030, the world is projected to have 41 mega-cities with more than 10 million inhabitants. Tokyo is projected to re- main the world’s largest city in 2030 with 37 million inhabitants, followed closely by Delhi where the population is projected to rise swiftly to 36 million. Several decades ago most of the world’s largest urban agglomerations were found in the more developed regions, but today’s large cities are concentrated in the global South. The fastest growing urban agglomerations are medium-sized cities and cities with less than 1 million inhabitants located in Asia and Africa.

futuristic tower block 2

Does vertical living change the supply-demand curve?

London faces a huge under-supply in available homes, one reason why the supply-demand curve has been steepening steadily over recent years. However according to the Policy Exchange there is not an under-supply in land, which wrote in February 2016 that: supply and demand graph“At its simplest, just three things are needed to build homes: land, funding and demand. What is needed is a new way of building homes which could provide the first two in abundance. London does not need any help with the third.. One issue then with London’s supply is a lack of contingency of land identified and earmarked for development. When producing a local development plan, Local Planning Authorities are required to identify only sufficient land for the homes that need to be built in their area and no more – i.e. the quantum of land identified in London is for 420,000 over 10 years – whereas we probably need far more than that to ensure that 420,000 actually get built.. London is not full. It remains a relatively low density city with plenty of land suitable for increased housing provision. Just look on Google Maps in or around central London and you won’t fail to be struck by the vast swathes of vacant or under-used land, used for surface car-parking, storage or warehousing. Industrial land could, over time, make a significant contribution. There are 6,899 hectares of industrial land in London and some of this land could be used for housing through a change of land use. As a start, there are 543.5 hectares of vacant industrial land, enough for nearly 70,000 homes. London continues to deindustrialise – according to a report produced for the GLA, the amount of industrial land declined by 9.4% in the 10 years to 2011 alone.” Chris Walker, Head of Housing, Planning and Urban Policy, Policy Exchange.

If there is abundant substitute excess land then does building up create a disinflationary pressure on property prices? Unlikely, given there is a disparity between abundant land supply and a lack of property. Building up is still one solution to building out when there is limited property supply. The experience of Australia may give us some indication of how a ‘high rise’ boom might change the supply-demand curve for residential property.

“Australia is in the midst of an unprecedented high rise residential construction boom. The skylines of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane – the three main capitals along Australia’s eastern seaboard – are currently littered with cranes, particularly in inner city locations. While residential construction is taking off, the increase in new apartments has lead to a slowdown in house price growth, particularly for higher density units. Increased supply, coming at a time when demand is softening on the back of affordability constraints, slowing migration, record-low wages growth and a crackdown on lending to housing investors, is putting pressure on prices. Supply is now potentially outstripping demand in some locations, leading to price declines in what were previously boom areas.”

Therefore because more land is available as a substitute (subject to local government approval) then building up or out may have similar effects on the supply-demand curve give or take the relative value of locations and cost of land versus the cost of constructing complex and tall towers. Steve Watts and Neal Kalita of Davis Langdon considered the challenges of building towers in London and noted:

“Structural frame, cores and upper floors amount to 15-25% of the construction cost in a commercial tower and 10-15% in a residential one. The design of the building (shape, massing and height) determines the weight and therefore the quantity of material required, which affects cost.”

Steve Watts and Neal Kalita also noted that, “the “average” above-ground benchmark cost for residential towers in London is considered to be £2,960/m2 with a range of ± £800.” With this in mind, the cost to build a 100m2 conventional timber-built 3 bedroom residential home is much lower at £1,751 per m/2 in central London compared to £1,644 for outer London. Certain areas of London (like Westminster, Kensington and Mayfair) prevent or restrict tower builds due to heritage and planning regulations. However where a tower is possible then it is logical that once the cost of build becomes proportionally similar or less than the cost of land then the potential investment return of a residential tower becomes attractive. Here then we can make an easy connection with Glasgow which has some of the country’s lowest cost per square metre. Accordingly Glasgow is building more conventional homes to replace old legacy tower blocks while London boroughs are building new tower blocks. Take the following London boroughs:


Town/Borogh Price Ft2 (£) Price per M2 (£) Price of Bedroom 3.4x3m
Kensington and Chelsea 1,052 11,321 118,874
Westminister 980 10,552 110,800
Camden 837 9,012 94,626
Hammersmith and Fulham 802 8,635 90,666
Islington 740 7,964 83,621
Wandsworth 647 6,959 73,074
Hackney 637 6,860 72,029
Southwark 602 6,484 68,083
Richmond Upon Thames 599 6,446 67,684
Tower Hamlets 598 6,432 67,541

Source: Halifax – 12 months to April 2016

London street


As the cost per square metre rises then, all other things being equal, high rise buildings become more attractive versus conventional low storey homes. These numbers are skewed by the utility or premium of owning a conventional home in a desirable inner city area. However in this instance the total value relies on the utility of one owner whereas the cost of a tower can be distributed across many investors or offset by significantly greater rental yield per square metre. Although the costs of building the tower are much greater, the cost of air above the land is effectively free (ignoring any regulatory, construction or architect costs). Given many property investors in London are not necessarily full time residents then the investment premium and objective of profit and rental income will often overtake the investors’ personal utility of home ownership. In conclusion, the attraction to build up; versus out, will increase where London prices remain elevated or continue to rise. Demand will remain strong so long as the Metropolis remains a hub for jobs and investment.

Conversely if values per square metre fall below an invisible threshold, relative to the cost of build, then it’s likely that the pipeline for new towers will slow. This is especially so given the fragile nature of funding for towers via Acquisition, Development and Construction (‘ADAC’) loans. These loans are often supplied by non UK banks and financial institutions. Therefore, based on the above figures, vertical living can and has been changing the supply-demand equilibrium in central London property but does so within a fairly narrow bound of supportive prices, easy ADAC borrowing and healthy foreign investment. We were able to see from the Brexit referendum that the foreign market is sensitive to both any political changes and currency. For example Singapore-based United Overseas Bank, Southeast Asia’s third-largest bank by assets, suspended loan applications for London residential properties. The London market relies heavily on overseas investment and funding, especially among the more expensive developments. Overseas banks’ share of new lending reached 42 per cent of the market in 2015 (slightly above 2007 levels) according to a De Montfort University survey, wrote the FT. According to FT, from the same article, some “overseas banks with portfolios of UK real estate loans have been asked to stress test them before making new loans, according to three people involved in the new loans market.”


Society and Order: The wider economic challenge?

Thinking back to Judge Dredd and real-world contemporary observations, we know that vertical living and high population density can lead to social disorder. An obvious and inconvenient challenge to agglomeration is the rising crime, social-media fuelled terrorism that deliberately focuses on concentrated conurbations. A number of research studies, globally, are finding empirical evidence to suggest that the interconnections between transport networks, land use, and population density can contribute to crime rates. The lessons of the tower blocks from the 1960s related to falling desirability, socio-economic imbalances such as unemployment. Modern high rise developments, with careful marketing, actively target desirable and convenient living. However desirability and obsolescence are closely related and can shift over time, as new developments may put pressure on older developments. Clearly high rise will continue to have a high sensitivity to perceived lifestyle and over-demand that typifies central London. As in the 1970s and 1980s, the perception of modern high rise is sensitive to a number of factors, as noted by James Miller for the Public Sector Build Journal.

“There was a growing awareness surrounding the multitude of social issues emerging within these communities in the sky – including social alienation, mental health difficulties, and rising crime levels. In what was essentially a misunderstanding of public and private space, the hidden corridors of tower blocks became hot-beds for crime and waste, leaving people without a sense of safety or enjoyment in their environment. The outcome of these mounting issues is that many early high-rise towers have since been demolished with the phrase ‘tower-block’ almost a dirty word in the residential sector. So as a multitude of multi-storey social housing buildings shoot up across the UK, what moves have been made to ensure history will not repeat itself? Fundamentally, towers need to be in the right location, look good and be built well. Amenities and local infrastructure, including particularly good public transport links, are a key component to delivering happy residents and achieving high densities. Not all early towers were universally disliked and both the Barbican and Trellick Tower continue to be regarded as design icons. Good design, like good art, sparks debate and a tower should contribute to the sky-line – tenants will be happier to live in a building they can be proud of.”

Judith Evans at the FT published an article: “Willats’ artwork, currently on display at Tate Britain, depicts a world of isolation, confinement and quiet despair. It was created at the low point of high-rise housing in Britain: an era of badly maintained council estates seen by some as catalysts for family breakdown and crime. Almost 40 years later, the idea of high-rise living is undergoing a revival. London has 436 new towers in the pipeline, of which three-quarters are wholly or mainly devoted to homes, according to the think-tank New London Architecture (NLA). In contrast with the earlier era of brutalist estates, this new crop of towers is largely made up of high-end apartment blocks, with concierges and glass façades, aimed at those wealthy enough to afford the now rare privilege of living in central London.”

Yet the debate over their value as living spaces still rages. A petition signed by a host of luminaries, including architect David Adjaye, sculptor Antony Gormley and hedge fund financier Sir Michael Hintze, argues that towers are “neither essential to meeting housing needs, nor the best way to achieve greater densities. Their purpose is more to create investments than homes or cohesive communities.”

Researching designs for high-rise living, Madelin visited London’s Barbican, a postwar estate designed for the middle classes that houses 4,000 people and an arts centre, and is increasingly in demand as a place to live. After falling out of favour in the 1980s, the Barbican’s return to popularity has mirrored the renaissance of inner cities; prices for its apartments now average almost £1m. It is one of the few residential areas in the City of London, drawing some part-time residents seeking a bolthole close to their offices, but also attracts families and retired people. The Pinnacle@Duxton, an award-winning 50-storey public housing development in Singapore, took a different approach: the seven towers are linked by “sky bridges” at the 26th and 50th floors which house a children’s playground, open-air gym and running track. Similarly, the property developer Harry Handelsman plans to incorporate three “sky gardens” in the design of his Manhattan Loft Gardens — a residential tower in Stratford, east London — the highest being 400ft above ground. Social engineering may actually work economically and sustainably if we can learn from previous mistakes.

Agglomeration? London continues to change rapidly towards vertical living, even outgoing Mayor Boris Johnson controversially proposed a scheme for building on existing low rise buildings. However the main change for London has been the growth in new high rise residential developments. Tall will get taller given the lack of cost for airspace and falling technology cost. However, the towers themselves still carry an intensive cost of development and thus most likely to be sensitive to the supply-demand equilibrium in higher cost boroughs. As housing demand continues to outstrip supply then the attraction of towers will spread outward from central into outer London. This relies on foreign investment and funding attracted by higher rental yields, accommodative currency and rising prices per square metre. Whether such agglomeration will have a sustainable economic effect for the capital, as a whole, is reliant on desirability, civil, environmental and social factors. Social dis-order is the risk. As we head furlong towards MegaCity London, where are the Judges? Dredd the thought.

Jon ‘JB’ Beckett, Consulting CIO

Gemini Investment Investment Management


 Useful links:

CTBUH Year in Review

London Skyscraper Boom Continues

Demolition Goes Wrong

The Consequences of Living in High Rise Buildings

Can High-Rise Buildings Ever Work as Cohesive Living Spaces?

Australia’s High-Rise Boom is weighing on Apartment Prices

London Housing Supply Blocked by Land Availability

The Homes London Needs

Post Brexit Housing Market Expected to Slow but Not Plummet

Cost Model: Tall Buildings

Average Cost of UK Property

Impact of Crime in High Rise Buildings

Sustaining Tower Blocks

Disappearing Glasgow

Asian Banks Suspend London Property Loans


Patriotism? The US Gorilla and the Brexit Bomb?

Dear Gemini friends,

This week I’m working on a couple of detailed articles that I hope to share with you soon. Last weekend my wife Jenny (aka Mrs. JB) and I drove the ‘North Coast 500’ around the Highlands of Scotland ( It took in some of the finest driving roads in the world, and while the weather was less than optimal, it did not diminish the returns of the vistas nor the overall experience. Most of the time, I am very proud to be Scottish; chronic national health, illiteracy and drug abuse notwithstanding. TheScotland Highlands Highlands can at times be viewed as insular towards ‘incomers’; in the main they are a welcoming people, but it does feel like a different country to the lowlands of Glasgow and Edinburgh. I was proudest when Scotland voted clearly to remain part of the Economic Union and, with the many signs displaying EU funding for roads, projects and infrastructure, it was not hard to see why.

It reminded me that no country is in itself the same economically, politically or culturally, let alone the tensions that then arise between countries.  It also brought into sharp focus patriotism and nationalism following an evening’s debate in the Raichonich Hotel with a Yorkshire based ex-City accountant (and Brexiteer) who was also visiting the area. Some thoughts then about the counter-pressures of nationalism and globalisation, as well as the ‘sisters doing it for themselves’ this week…

Theresa ‘Steel’ May met Metal Merkle, and Monsieur Hollandaise ahead of a delayed Article 50, as the UK looks set to wrestle with a slow ‘Brexit’ process. Gina Miller, of SCM PMerkle Mayrivate, legally challenged Brexit this week on grounds of no exit strategy and that it would need to be ratified in law by MPs. I am sure about half the country will be appalled and half over-joyed at the prospect. The case has been petitioned to the High Court and may well go to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile as 2018 approaches, I have written before about the (delayed) transatlantic trade agreement between the US and Europe looms. Heading into those negotiations the US looks to have the stronger hand irrespective of whether Lord Trumpet de Bouffant or Ferrous Femme Clinton takes the oval office. Trump’s Republican nomination will now invariably drag Hilary right on foreign policy, trade and crime.

Trump Clinton

The value of the US consumer is estimated by Macquarie at $13 trillion dollars or roughly the total GDP of the European Union. US unemployment is at historical lows, wages set to rise, the dollar has strengthened and household debt has fallen. The US consumer buys Make America Greatdomestic and import goods equally, a rising sense of ‘made in America’ patriotism resonates. However the US (like the UK) is deeply divided geographically and socially on issues such as racial discrimination, immigration, crime and wealth division.

Recounting my previous blog on political risk, US markets too look forward to the election as it historically predates a period of strong stock market returns, on average 18 months. Clearly these will have upward pressures on the stoic and slow inertia Federal Reserve. Any increase to rates will steepen the long end of the US Treasury curve and potential re-price more duration risk back into US and global bond markets. Politically the US looks ready to play hard with the rest of the world and with it threaten globalisation, movement of persons and investment.

Moreover, at a time when emerging markets have looked more attractive on valuation, and have been performing well in 2016; then a strengthening dollar, reducing freedom of movement and increasingly combative global trade agreements bode badly for exporters. Countries appear to be moving further apart and, within those countries, greater divides than ever. Thinking about how to try and invest through the noise.

Brexit Puzzle

Potential ideas:

  • US Equities over European Equities
  • US and global structured products
  • Long dollar versus other currencies
  • Focus on strong US domestic driven companies (e.g. US Autos, retailers, financials)
  • Quality companies importing into US that can benefit from a stronger Dollar
  • Value reversion – companies trading below or near intrinsic value
  • Overseas income producing stocks
  • Selected Emerging Markets with strong domestic stories
  • Global and US REITs recovering from recent discounts
  • Countries and companies benefitting from lower range
  • Recovering US High Yield debt following recent spread widening (if no rate rise)
  • Quality Asset-backed, and floating rate debt pegged to the Fed or related interest rate (if there is a fed rate rise)
  • Straddle options on S&P500
  • Sector/stock specific Japan


The risks: 

  • Gold price softening as flight to fear trade abates
  • US Export dependent emerging markets competing with US home brands
  • UK and European property market
  • Infrastructure and ADAC loans market
  • Fed rate risk to bond markets
  • Duration could lead to further spread widening for High Yield debt
  • Falling confidence on UK negotiation with EU
  • Export led companies leaving UK to relocate to EU
  • US asset-backed debt: especially sub-prime in the Autos sector
  • Overheating US property market (state specific)
  • Hard currency Emerging Market debt
  • China debt
  • Japan index


Go long Gorilla; short the world?

The above are just some of my own ideas. At Gemini we have a number of experienced managers who can offer a range of strategies to traverse global markets.


Have a good week,

Jon ‘JB’ Beckett

Consulting CIO, Gemini



Brexit or BAU? Property, Purchasing Manager’s Index (PMI) and Poundland

Is the UK a bargain buy? With the Pound (£) breaking through $1.30 already and $1.20s not improbable, it certainly looks like it might. Yet UK equity indices like the FTSE recovered reasonably well to the mid-6500 range after the Brexit outcome; however what is less Poundlandreported is that many stocks sensitive to the economy (like housebuilders) remain weak. Cheap is therefore not always good.

When it comes to cheap, I’m not a regular frequenter of Poundland. I am Scottish, however, so I do like a good deal but it’s the short-termism and downward price pressure created by these stores that has destroyed some of the fabric of the High Street. Those on lower incomes may well see these stores as lifelines to essentials, indicative of the state of our nation. Indeed as a Consumer-based, Service-led economy, what is bought on the High Street (and how much) is a good forward indicator for company earnings and a growing or shrinking economy. A low inflation cum anaemic growth economy was always going to be fragile to shocks. Consumer confidence is easy to herd but hard to predict and the likes of social media plays a growing influence on confidence.

Bricks and Buying – Cue last week’s news being dominated by Sterling, hitting a 30-year low, and commercial property funds. The property showdown, I believe, would have occurred at some point Brexit or no Brexit and I wrote about that very topic only a few weeks ago ( Yet what is more indicative for the UK economy is the PMI index. This index captures the purchasing and new orders placed into and by UK companies. Perhaps two years before Brexit happens, it is a sign of business as usual (BAU). Having peaked earlier this year, the PMI index has shown signs of weakening. For example, growth in the U.K. services sector, Markit’s services purchasing managers’ indexDark Skyline has started to fall. The closely watched gauge was at its lowest level since April with growth over the second quarter at its lowest since the first quarter of 2013. The outlook for the year was the ‘darkest since  December 2012’, according to Markit, with companies reporting uncertainty linked to the referendum weighing on workloads and incoming new business.

While media noise around UK’s property market may drive worsening consumer confidence (watch for the next GFK Consumer Climate and Halifax property reports) if there is a sustained decline in the PMI index (or on the High Street) then this is a clearer sign of possible UK recession.

Munich 6 July 2016 – According to IFO (the German economic think tank), the result of the Brexit referendum will “probably only put a small damper on the German economy this year and in 2017”. IFO’s latest figures indicate that growth in Germany will be around 0.1 percent lower than previously forecast for 2016 and 0.1 – 0.2 percentage points lower in 2017. These effects are due to weaker exports and investments. “This is a small effect. It will not endanger the upswing that the German economy has been experiencing for over three years now” said Timo Wollmershäuser, Interim Director of the IFO Center for Business Cycle Analysis and Surveys, on Wednesday. “We expect an economic downturn in Britain, a depreciation of the British pound, as well as a temporary period of higher uncertainty. That will have a small negative impact on German exports and investments, but this will be short-lived”, he noted.

A U.K. recession looks more likely than a month ago; meanwhile Europe (Germany) looks set to be more bullish, which may have a bearing on EU negotiations. If this all sounds like Pocket moneyall the ingredients for 1) long-Europe/US and short-UK pair, or 2) stratagem of buying global income funds or UK companies with overseas income, then I would happily buy that 2-for-1 deal next time I am in Poundland. But for now I’m keeping my shillings in my pocket.



JB, Consulting CIO


Equity Income Post Brexit – What Next?

The result of the Brexit referendum has been known for some days and ‘Project Fear’ is becoming ‘Project Fact’. No matter what one’s view of the result, this is the new reality.

RealityThe purpose of this note is to discusses the likely economic and market impacts from the perspective of UK investors with a yield requirement and to provide an insight into how we are positioning the Sabre Global Value & Income Fund.

In summary:

  • Selectively long FTSE100
  • Avoid domestic UK, Europe. Beware UK dividend cuts (Property, Banks, Retail).
  • Long Asia – equity dividend yield a great strategy here
  • US Assets expensive, but avoid significant risk exposure (long or short) to USD / US Equities for now.


UK – Significant Slowdown in Economic Activity

This is happening now. Activity slowed in leading up to the referendum, and given the result is unlikely to re-accelerate any time soon. Businesses and individuals will inevitably put investment decisions on hold whilst the considerable uncertainties resolve themselves. Given the depth of the integration between the UK and the EUSlow Economy single market, it is a hard to overstate the magnitude of the task awaiting the UK Government and UK Business. Brexit is likely to be disruptive to business for many years. Additionally the UK’s balance of payments deficit leaves us dependent on global capital flows and sterling is likely to show further strain in our view.

Europe – Negative Impact Highly Likely

In economic terms Brexit will impact on already fragile European economies. Further significant economic, financial and political difficulties wait in Europe, probably the most pressing of which is the parlous state of the Italian Banking system.Safe money

Global Economic Impact – Limited

We would expect the economic impact of Brexit on the US and Asian economies to be limited. These areas offer some protection, at least from Brexit related uncertainty.

Companies and Markets


  • We are happy to selectively own Large Cap (FTSE) global dollar earners. Recent sterling weakness move should protect profits (and dividends) in GBP. We hold RDS, GSK, RIO and some precious metal stocks (Centamin, Polymetal).
  • Domestically focused assets (Banks, Housebuilders, Retailers) have been hit hard over the last 10 days, and represent the market’s clearest view of the likely pain in the UK economy. We avoid exposure completely.
  • We would envisage potentially significant dividend cuts in UK stocks in the retail, banking and property sectors.


  • A weaker euro will benefit some global stocks, thoughEuro Weight UK volumes are likely to be adversely impacted as the UK economy slows
  • There remain significant political, economic and financial clouds on the near horizon. Where we can find quality businesses with diversified global exposure at attractive valuations we will buy, otherwise avoid. Any crisis or significant market falls may present additional buying opportunities in such stocks.


  • We see stocks in this region as relatively immunised from Brexit impact. Attractive yields, when backed by decent cash flow, can offer good support and our research is focused in this area. Current ideas: Quantas/Air NZ, CSR, SkyCity (all Australia/NZ)
  • China related concerns have impacted valuations in the region which are now attractive in our view. China is not ‘out of the woods’, significant challenges remain and direct China exposure is for the brave.
  • Quality stocks in other Asian economies offer value however. As the fund is not hamstrung by benchmark weightings, we are able to take significant overweight positions in the region, and will do so where we find value. Dividend yield is a winning strategy in Asia and we are confident that our investment approach is more than competitive and can generate strong value added in these markets.


  • US assets do not offer value, but have generated attractive returns this year as relative safe havens in economic and currency terms. We can think of few events more deserving of a ‘flight to safety’ than the prospect of a Trump presidency, so USD currency and US Market returns may exhibit apparently ‘perverse’ behaviour in coming months. Our approach to US assets is a safety first one this year, designed to minimise risk in GBP terms.


Ross Hollyman

Sabre Fund Managers

Ross Hollyman

That was the week that was!

Well what a week we have had? Never in my life have I have ever seen such a week of change, intrigue, Machiavellian behaviour and outright political high-jinx. Never have I seen the UK so engaged in this change to the point that even my children are fascinated by the repercussions of the momentous decisions made on the 23rd ofTW3 June and what the future has in store for them. Sir David Frost would have loved it and his show from the 60’s would have had a smorgasbord of things to choose from. The satirical show (TW3) looked at the UK in a very different way and some would say it created the comedy stars that we see around us today who are observational in their humour and allow us to laugh at ourselves for all our faults. Not that we in the UK have lots of faults but boy do we need to laugh at ourselves or we might cry!

The last 7 days have shown that the life of a politician is not an easy one and one that I would never want to entertain. It is a world of back stabbing and change that would wet the lips of many a Hollywood script writer, but I don’t want to dwell on the politics, but rather the outcome for the UK asset management industry.

The UK Funds industry says it is in fine shape and is well positioned to deal with the fallout from Brexit and who am I to argue with that. I do believe that the industry will survive but it will not necessarily look global tradingthe same in 10 years as it does now. We cannot get away from the fact we work in a global industry; we are not a corner shop with local trade; we are proudly a dominant force in the global funds industry and or the last 40 years we have benefitted from many overseas business using London as the stepping stone not just into Europe but beyond. Will that continue? My concerns are that we will lose some of that and we are seeing evidence of that already.

As a Fund Hosting and Distribution business we ply our trade to all Fund Managers in all 4 corners of the world. US and Asian Managers alike, come to us for advice on launching Funds and how they can gather assets from Investors. They see us as their Guides through an increasingly hostile and challenging topography; a landscape that just got a wee bit more challenging after last week! When we set up Gemini Investment Funds we wanted to appeal to Managers and Investors at a global level so we chose a tax neutral internationally recognised fund centre, namely Dublin. Why Dublin….well that would be telling! But you can ask another time. However, more telling was the fact we didn’t build the business in London other than our sales and marketing Dublindivision. We needed a platform that we could export internationally and ironically the tax treatment of some UK domiciled funds would not be as attractive to overseas investors, hence an offshore domicile. In addition International investors want to be in an internationally recognised structure that centres such as Luxembourg and Dublin offer. Final decision is the passporting ability or UCITS as it is commonly known. And here lies the problem post Brexit!

Running up to Brexit we were very busy with RFIs from managers all around the world, mainly USA and Asia, but the odd ones from the Middle East. They were not even concerned with Brexit, for them the structure, its simplicity of dealing and the costs were the key drivers. They needed a UCITS vehicle, which was efficient for them for global distribution, and Dublin suited them, whilst London didn’t. We also saw some UK Managers weighing up whether they set up a UK domiciled Fund or a Dublin Fund. Many saw their distribution solely in the UK and perhaps further out the European market etc. Those Managers chose to stay in the UK. Today they may well be regretting that decision and judging by the calls this week from UK domiciled managers the future of fund development even for the UK Funds Industry is not going to be in the EU BrexitUK. Many are now saying why launch 2 sets of funds with associated costs when one fund structure will cover all distribution requirements. Whether you believe them to be wrong the facts are beginning to stack up with news in the last few days of firms moving extra staff into their offshore locations. In our office in Dublin we are expanding and taking on more staff and whilst we are not the size of M&G etc., the same rules apply, London is losing out!

Best Regards


Stuart Alexander

Chief Executive

gemini investment management london-1024

Is the best Brexit, Status Quo? 12 Gold Bars and Bazookas

Back in the 1970s, Status Quo was one of the loudest heavy rock bands of the time, in stark contrast to the band’s perceived kitsch persona by the mid-1990s. I picked up a vinyl copy of the ’12 Gold Bars’, which was an early 80’s compilation of Quo’s 70’s hit songs. I played it on my turntable and was blown away! 

In fact much of the 70s was viewed with a harsh nostalgic Status Quocynicism through the lens of the capitalist monochrome 80s, apologetic pastel 90s or cynical disenfranchised noughties. Big-Bang, boom, bust, dotcom, the great moderation, then the crash, then anaemia. It has left a view of 70s brown and orange as no longer cool, nor was the Labour-led politics of the time, which was utterly crushed by over a decade of Thatcherism. Likewise the EU, another product of the 60s and 70s, now seems to be going through its ‘Status Quo’ moment, a world away from the optimism when the UK joined. Forty years on and the public has forgot what was gained, what was given away, lost and won. It’s hardly surprising the nation was divided, confused and apathetic towards such a profound constitutional question when it came. It was as much as a referendum on ‘do you like Status Quo?’

What a question. Now the Brexit referendum outcome is known, what next? It actually feels less certain than before the vote was in. After all it’s not like pressing a big red button, our economies and societies are too interconnected for that. Meanwhile centre politics across the West is in demise, at the pincer mercy of the far left and right. Traditional political parties are morphing, fragmenting, new alliances forming. All of this is frankly shocking to the political duopoly that is the United States. 

gold bricksMany will flight to the political hedge asset of old, gold. Certainly the political premium has moved the spot price up nicely this year but this safe haven is synthetic. You may actually hold physical gold or maybe a futures contract. Heaven-forbid you mistake Miners Equities or Bit-Gold for Gold. However even with physical Gold there is a very real disconnect to economies and currencies post Bretton-Woods. Fiat money is not pegged nor controlled by gold. Governments have steadily reduced their reserves. Thus gold’s ability, as a hedge, is utterly commoditised in a secular disinflationary cycle. If gold does not solve political risk then what? 

A Very Undemocratic Solution?

Ironically in an undemocratic twist, there is a very strong likelihood that the establishment: unelected lobby groups, corporations and asset managers influence both sides to come to an agreement that rather resembles the status quo. The world has been increasingly moving towards intra-regional trade agreements, a step closer to globalised free trade, the US at one end, China at the other and Europe in the middle. This will likely combine into US-EU negotiations for TTIP, Washington’s softening time towards UK is noteworthy and either Trump or Clinton can be expected to be pro-UK due to its pivotal role in NATO. Furthermore, the UK Government (perhaps deliberately) is now stalling on Article 50, which increases the chances of Brexit being on the table come TTIP. No wonder the right-pushed French are so keen to get started. By contrast Merkel is somewhat stuck between her own election campaign and a likely willingness to come to an agreement that does not jeopardise TTIP to offset a slowing China. 

But what is TTIP? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a proposed trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. The agreement is under ongoing negotiations and its main three broad areas are: market access; specific regulation; and broader rules and principles and modes of co-operation. The negotiations were planned to be finalised by the end ofTTIP 2014, but will not be finished until 2019 or 2020. The European Commission has indicated that the TTIP would boost the EU’s economy by €120 billion, the US economy by €90 billion and the rest of the world by €100 billion. How much the US stands by the UK may see TTIP being the key leverage to an anaemia type renegotiation given that it will take at least 2 years for the Brexit negotiation to conclude. Do the arithmetic; that would take us to mid-2018; uncomfortably close to TTIP for the EU. 

For business and markets this should come as great relief; for those who voted Brexit this may be less than optimal. I say ‘should’ as media is doing a good job of creating tension with sign-posts around debt, slowing growth, balance of trade, immigration, recession fears, immigration and sovereignty. The City may feel restless but for now we must remain business as usual. Knee-jerk reactions by fund houses will likely simmer down; those sitting with genuine cross-border operations will feel content whichever way the negotiations unfold.

ECBs Corporate Bazooka Could Provide Calm to Corporate Bond Markets

volatility With uncertainty comes market volatility. Step in the central banks. However the buzz-phrase for central bank actions, since the credit crisis, has been ‘quantitative-failure’, the wrong allocation of liquidity into the economy. Quantitative Easing (‘QE’) was first used to shore up bank balance sheets; now central banks have started using QE to stimulate other parts of the economy. Initially there was some skepticism towards the ECB’s catchily entitled Corporate Sector Purchase Programme (‘CSPP’) but post-Brexit is being hailed as the ‘New Hope’ for volatile markets and widening Credit spreads. The programme uses QE to buy corporate bonds and provide lending to companies including SMEs. Fund managers won’t be the biggest fan of CSPP but it will tighten spreads, provide companies liquidity and calm market volatility. The task ahead then for the Bank of England and ECB is simple, play a good tune to maintain calm until the Brexit and TTIP negotiation is concluded. Be in no doubt that Brexit will have strengthened the US hand ahead of TTIP but ultimately a fractured Europe is bad for business, and it will conclude with a cross US-EU-UK trade pact that should allow cross-region trade/investment but without the need for freedom of movement since that will never be part of TTIP. Sovereignty and free trade imagine that.

More importantly, like Status Quo, if we can remind ourselves of why we liked the European Union project back in the 70s then perhaps that is something we can re-build on.

Down down, deeper and down?


JB, Consulting CIO


Chasing the Holy Grail? Skill, Stars, Marketing and Bloody Maths Geeks?

Indiana Jones

As I sit here once again stuck in London City airport with a delayed return flight home my thoughts turn to a journalist query and I feel compelled to share my response in my CIO blog. I don’t often rant but then I can’t let my CEO Mr. Alexander have all the fun!

In my new Ambassador role I attended and spoke at the Transparency Task Force Symposium at the Unison Centre, an excellent event which included luminaries, MPs and the odd gobby Scot talking about FinTech and B-movie monsters! The room was shaped like a mini-UN chamber. The speaker line-up was varied, insightful and included one Mathematician who, having run lots of normal distribution data, concluded that ‘skill’ cannot be statistically observed without 600 years of Gaussian data (normal distribution or bell curve). He also quickly caveated he had no professional background in asset management. He made some nice comparisons to the rules relating to optics between two objects, the analogy being the benchmark beta and active ‘skill’. It was a well-paced delivery and populist for the mood in the room. The audience applauded and praised the presenter with an array of superlatives, as if he had cracked an unknown conundrum or the origin of black holes. How many actually understood the notation on the slides is debatable, but there were enough colourful probability density functions to guide even the most notation illiterate. I was later left surprised that my esteemed friend Con Keating retorted that the Maths was sound, closing ranks around geek assumptions over the vagaries of subjective qualitative analysis. My Transparency colleagues and passive proponents were wowed by the revelation, I sat rather less enamoured. As an ex-quant (not a very good one), but by no means a mathematician, I looked on cynically. A chance to ask a question presented itself. I put up my hand and pressed the annoy button.

Raised HandAhem, thanks for that, it was ‘interesting.’ But if I may note that 1) markets do NOT follow Gaussian patterns, 2) skill is not a constant and as a professional fund buyer, 3) we do not assume ‘skill’ when we observe a residual return. Any view on that?’ 

The speaker stuttered, stumbled, recoiled. Jovial cheers soon turned to gasps that someone may offer such a non-partisan view amid an otherwise anti-active manager agenda. The room fell quiet. Throughout the remaining day other TTF members showed their support for the Maths geek but it’s hard to know what they liked about it. Perhaps my question was too harsh, had I just beaten a puppy?

I’ll be blunt (I usually am). It was an interesting presentation for laypeople not involved in fund selection; it’s nothing I or any professional fund buyers hasn’t heard before. It was well presented and articulated but ultimately a naive academic view, one made by a charming observer who, by self-admission, had never analysed a fund manager up close. Any study that then starts with a hypothetical statistical data easily stating 12 times in duration of that of reliable observable data is absurd. That’s the problem with mathematics, all theory no real world. Funds are not observable assets; they are organic and run by fleshy machines we call humans. Ignoring the tiny number of fund managers still in charge of funds for more than 10 years, if the presentation at least challenges those who rely on medium-term performance to buy funds then I’m all for change.

Persistency of ratings based on 3-5 year data has been challenged academically for some time. However they make for good marketing. Likewise, GBM (Geometric Brownian Motion) approaches are largely contested in professional fund buying circles. Retail markets have been beholden to basic statistical theory for 50 years, enshrined by GIPS and Morningstar ‘Star’ ratings and equivalents. They are generally ignored by professional institutional fund buyers.

The reality is that I do not believe performance regression can ever be used in isolation to pick funds. It is used as a means to make fund screening more manageable. Neither is the benchmark (S&P500) Performance Signreliable, alpha is not a constant and nor are asset markets Gaussian in nature, as 2008 demonstrated. Risk, too, is not constant or even volatility, beta, liquidity and the market factors are that will ultimately push and pull asset prices. Forget even the behavioural or heuristic aspects at play.

However, the answer is not then, by default, just hold the benchmark as subtly inferred. Buying passive at any index level will drive very different outcomes. Beta does not try to protect your capital, someone buying the S&P500 in 1999 or 2007 will be all too aware of this but any given manager can rotate to cash or Defensives when a Bear Market is in effect. Fidelity’s 2005 Magellan study ably demonstrated the importance of holding period Timingand entry-exit point. Does that require market timing? Yes, but not forecasting. Running out of the way of a runaway train once it’s starting to roll is still better than staying on the tracks. Most long run studies don’t make any assumption for entry point like buying a value-biased manager who is 10% behind market and has a book at 20% discount.

Unlike amateur buyers; Professional fund buyers rarely assume ‘skill’ when they observe a residual return to a benchmark. They will also understand the asset make up of the benchmark as much as the fund, the difference in beta and ultimately the factors that drive the manager’s return. Professional fund buyers have superior tools, expertise and access to the fund manager by which to derive that view. There is a growing divergence between retail buyers (including advisers) and institutional buyers. There are a number of studies like Diane Del Guercio at University of Oregon that showed that US advisers were poor pickers of active funds. Poor fund buying I believe skews the wider active-passive debate just as much as the US biased very large studies like SPIVA.

Mutual Fund Performance and the Incentive to Generate Alpha Paper

‘To rationalize the well-known underperformance of the average actively managed mutual fund, we exploit the fact that retail funds in different market segments compete for different types of investors. Within the segment of funds marketed directly to retail investors, we show that flows chase risk-adjusted returns, and that funds respond by investing more in active management. Importantly, within this direct-sold segment, we find no evidence that actively managed funds underperform index funds. In contrast, we show that actively managed funds sold through brokers face a weaker incentive to generate alpha, and significantly underperform index funds.’

The implication is that poor fund selection practices existed among commission-based advisers and the flows to popular retail funds may have skewed the ‘average’ performance of active funds. In my paper ‘Core-Satellite Conundrum’, I proposed that fund buyers maySafe Bets be falling for game theory by taking safe ‘bets’ into the same well known funds. In other words fund buyers may be opting for ‘safe’ core options on an assumption of an inability to identify superior choices with any certainty (see below). How much was commission, how much marketing, how much bias?

Asset management is far too dynamic to pick funds based on performance alone, understanding the workings is essential. For me numbers can pose questions, but not answers. I avoid aggregated time period analysis and rather assess managers at the holding level through key non-Gaussian market events. Some of our members will employ quantitative techniques, but they are typical far removed from basic rear-view-mirror approach. I believe more real world econometric and factor based analysis has value.

Moreover what this highlights is that professionalism of fund selection and due diligence is critical and standardisation of some practices overdue. If scheme trustees, advisers or IGCs are trying to look at Sharing Alphafunds this way then they need help. Fund selection should be more transparent and I call to my peers to embrace crowd-rating initiatives, like, to demonstrate our value. This is something we take very seriously at the Association of Professional Fund Investors and personally as an Ambassador for the TTF.

At Gemini we are committed to finding managers that can demonstrate alpha or deliver compelling cost adjusted returns and risk solutions. We do that by looking beyond outputs and understanding our managers and how they can add value to our fund buyers and investors.

Happy travels, now where’s my bloody flight?


Consulting CIO

Jon “JB” Beckett