Do better off investors need life and income protection insurance?

27th February 2013

In the first Mindful Money podcast we talk to chief executive Tom Baigrie and ask him do better off investors really need life and protection insurance.

Tom Baigrie. chief executive of

Tom Baigrie. chief executive of

13 thoughts on “Do better off investors need life and income protection insurance?”

  1. forbin says:

    “adverse weather conditions.”

    well thats Global Warming for you

    The Greenies were right – burning too much carbon is bad for your wealth

    ( top 01.% excluded of course )


    1. Anonymous says:

      Hi Forbin

      I do often wonder how much the weather has actually changed as opposed to our regularly blaming it for all sorts of things considered inconvenient. For example earlier today someone tweeted pictures of the Seine flooding Paris back in 1910 well before any modern Green agenda.

      Is there a Goldilucks style “just right” for the weather anymore?

  2. Just a thought says:

    Hi Shaun,

    1. Anonymous says:

      Hi Justathought

      I suspect that you are right….

  3. Noo 2 Economics says:

    Hi Shaun,

    I am coming to the conclusion that all CB’s are under the dominion of the IMF. They have been nagging away about “transparency” of monetary policy in the last 12 months basically ordering CB’s to start telling the markets what their future intentions and expectations are. I have read it in country report after country report and am worried about the markets simply gaming the CB’s.

    This “transparency” has been named “Forward Guidance” by the CB’s and I don’t agree with it due to the gaming possibilities causing even more volatility.

    Another problem is exactly that you say the same thing to 30 people and they give 30 different interpretations of what you said. I think some idea should be given of future expectations/policy but nowhere near the level of detail they are providing.

    They’re all following an autocue from the IMF which can lead the whole globe into disaster. Why do they keep targeting markets? Why don’t they target the real economy and let the markets follow?

    By the way, you asked yesterday for the link for my prediction re future wages and here it is:

    If I am right then unfortunately we will only be pacing inflation by the end of the year which will still leave us 8% – 9% worse off and I don’t know what will happen with wages when my predicted inflationary spike comes in 2015.

    Carney needs to increase rates now but the US can afford to dawdle on this issue imo as they will want more inflation as their fiscal debt climbs ever higher (although I think I read somewhere they’ve got heir own problems with wages failing to pace inflation), I think they may be targeting $2.00 to the pound!

    1. forbin says:

      ” Why do they keep targeting markets? Why don’t they target the real economy and let the markets follow?”

      $64 million question me thinks – perhaps a study of the energy markets might help , theres a reason oil is still over $100 Boe and it aint speculation

      Depsite what may have happened with Natgas in USA , energy is still not cheap for the RoW …..


      “Another problem is exactly that you say the same thing to 30 people and they give 30 different interpretations of what you said.”

      very true – thats why if it isnt in the minutes then it wasn’t said , whatever you may remember hearing ……

      And I dont believe in the “output gap ” either , I posit that the BoE inflation target is non other than wages inflation , thus they now talk about interest rate rises – this ties in with what you said.


    2. Anonymous says:

      Hi Noo2

      Your thought is coming to fruition in CPI terms anyway as the last 2 single months figures for Average earnings have been 1.7% on a year on year basis.Although whilst inflation may drift lower the April number was very strong last year and there may be a 2 steps forwards one step back type situation.

      As to the IMF I think that they and the central bankers are cut from the same cloth and accordingly think along the same lines. So it is a bit like the Sir Humphrey Appleby statement where he says “you pick someone who does not need influencing”. In a way those who have argued that the BIS is a cosy club have seen a lot of evidence backing that up. Oh to be back to the days when conspiracy theories were just that! The Bank of England will be picking IMF staffers next …Oh wait a minute.

      They all arrived at Jackson Hole the summer before last wondering if monetary policy was “maxxed out” and there was something to cling to as forward guidance was explained to them…

  4. Eric says:

    Hi Shaun,
    Clearly Central Bankers do not want to raise rates. Their problem is convincingly explaining why. And the more they try the more foolish they sound. They seem to be hoping a good excuse will just turn up.

    1. Patrick, London says:

      Ladies and Gentlemen… For one night, and every night that follows, I give you “The Weather”

      They may well start using Climate change soon…

  5. theyenguy says:

    Both Equity Investments and Credit Investments turned lower on March 19, 2014, after the US Fed FOMC Meeting, as the bond vigilantes called the Interest Rate on the US Ten Year Note, ^TNX, higher to 2.77%, on the exhaustion of the world central bank’s monetary authority, as the US Fed and other central banks have crossed the rubicon of sound monetary policy. Global ZIRP, and its excessive credit, working through the speculative leveraged investment community, has fully matured money manager capitalism, and finally made “money good” investments bad, with result that the world has pivoted from the paradigm and age of liberalism into that of authoritarianism.

    Now with the bond vigilantes in control of the Benchmark Interest Rate, after Yellen’s first FOMC meeting, and with the bear stock market that began March 14, 2014 fully entrenched, credit as a way of life, and is over, through, finished and done; the world has pivoted into the age of austerity and debt servitude.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Great column, Shaun. You wrote: “The 2.5% knockout has gone too, mostly I think because the fact that inflation has been persistently below the target it is no longer needed.” Of course you are right, but how much comfort can we take from that? If the inflation forecasts coming from the US Fed itself are accurate, it may be irrelevant to the end of Chairman Yellen’s term, but things can change pretty quickly. Steve Liesman of CNBC asked Chairman Yellen: “…[I]t means once you hit the longer run
    unemployment rate of ‐‐ which is the (inaudible) average of being 5.4 percent –
    once you get 2 percent inflation rate, the market should not then anticipate
    the longer run 4 percent Fed funds rate?” He asked another question after that. Chairman Yellen answered his second question and ignored his first one. I’m not sure if inflationary pressures started developing, Chairman Yellen wouldn’t let inflation go to 2½% or higher to keep unemployment down. She spoke about the US Fed’s “full employment goal” in her press conference but never once used the expression “inflation targeting”. Andrew Baldwin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *