Cant comment on the "mansion tax" but pension tax relief & the AA/LTA could well be addressed. Higher rate tax relief going, but the rate for everyone going up to 25% is a strong one I hear. However, this early on I expect its feelers being put out to see what the public will wear.
There is a real lack of choice in Hong Kong for stock-trading platforms, they are mostly geared towards pros or are run by banks with silly fees. Have decided to move money back to England and take advantage of the wider choice of platforms on offer.
Can anyone recommend a low-fee platform in the UK? It will mostly be used for ETFs but with a few picks here and there with access to international markets.
as mentioned not long ago, The Lang Cat are your best ever friends for reviewing the many platforms now available on the UK market.
The UK has easily the widest choice of both platforms and funds (other than the US, I suppose), but when you say "access to international markets" there are myriad funds which invest in all kinds of global markets, but a UK platform will offer you funds which are denominated in £s, and your holdings will also be in £s. If you wanted to hold some investments in euros, you'd need a Euro platform, but in my experience they are all crap (i.e, much like how you describe the HK ones) compared with several UK platforms.
Thanks Prague. Any recommendations on usability?
I'm also pondering if it would be worth setting up a DIY ISA for buying funds and a share dealing platform for the picks rather than buying both funds and shares through one platform
Ah, I forgot that you are in HK, which was pretty silly of me, since you mentioned it! In that case none of these myriad platfoms based in "Global Britain" will take your money. Unless that is you still have a UK bank account, and a UK address available to you?
If yes, then I would delve into the Lang Cat's recommendations. For usability it is difficult to beat Hargreaves Lansdowne, from what I have seen, but they are not the cheapest.
Pension relief at the higher amount has been on it's last legs for a long while, they've already cut it for earners over £150k.
Another reason I need to pack up work before too long.
I know this is a potentially dopey question but if I am ( with my employer) putting £1200 a month into my pension and im a higher rate tax payer what would a change to 25% relief mean for me a year
Pension relief at the higher amount has been on it's last legs for a long while, they've already cut it for earners over £150k.
Another reason I need to pack up work before too long.
I know this is a potentially dopey question but if I am ( with my employer) putting £1200 a month into my pension and im a higher rate tax payer what would a change to 25% relief mean for me a year
Assuming it's 50/50 - or £600 you/£600 your employer (and you earn less than £150k) - you current contribution costs you net 60% of that £600 (£360) - after applying tax relief of 40%.
If tax relief is restricted to 25% then the cost to you would be 75% of that £600 - i.e £450.
Pension relief at the higher amount has been on it's last legs for a long while, they've already cut it for earners over £150k.
Another reason I need to pack up work before too long.
I know this is a potentially dopey question but if I am ( with my employer) putting £1200 a month into my pension and im a higher rate tax payer what would a change to 25% relief mean for me a year
Bob Munro is correct but is assuming you are paying £600 with other £600 from employer. He is also assuming you pay 40% on the annual £7,200 contribution. This would only be the case if you currently earn £57,200 or more per annum.
12,500 tax Free 12,501 to £50,000 at 20% £50,001 to £150,000 40%
Earning less than £57,200 would mean you were only getting some of your relief at 20%. Therefore the possible change would increase that relief to 25% and reduce your deficit on losing the 40% reduced to 25%.
I do so much love my job......and the FCA & their "findings".
Their latest one is that they are "concerned" that advisors may be putting clients into certain products because of the ongoing advisor charges that can be received from said products that other products might not be able to facilitate......on the basis that as more & more advisors are "selling" their client book to larger advisory firms upon retirement they want to boost their fees as much ad possible as it is usually the ongoing fees being brought in that determines the sale price. ie, If an advisor has 100 clients that brings in £50k pa in ongoing fees then large advisory firm may pay 3x ongoing fees as a one off "retirement bonus".
And so you might ask what has prompted this from the FCA.............
They have found that non-advised clients are more likely to buy an annuity upon retirement, whereas advised clients are more likely to go into Drawdown.
Its a bit like saying that someone going to see their GP is more likely to get a prescription/medication for their illness than someone who sits at home & does nothing......and so GP's are bad news as they are costing people money.
I do so much love my job......and the FCA & their "findings".
Their latest one is that they are "concerned" that advisors may be putting clients into certain products because of the ongoing advisor charges that can be received from said products that other products might not be able to facilitate......on the basis that as more & more advisors are "selling" their client book to larger advisory firms upon retirement they want to boost their fees as much ad possible as it is usually the ongoing fees being brought in that determines the sale price. ie, If an advisor has 100 clients that brings in £50k pa in ongoing fees then large advisory firm may pay 3x ongoing fees as a one off "retirement bonus".
And so you might ask what has prompted this from the FCA.............
They have found that non-advised clients are more likely to buy an annuity upon retirement, whereas advised clients are more likely to go into Drawdown.
Its a bit like saying that someone going to see their GP is more likely to get a prescription/medication for their illness than someone who sits at home & does nothing......and so GP's are bad news as they are costing people money.
You couldn't make it up.
But is it true that most non-advised take an annuity whereas most advised opt for drawdown?
It may be that drawdowners have bigger pots and other investments and annuity buyers less so and need security of income - and the former are more likely to seek advice due to their financial profile. In which case it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy but if not then it does need further analysis.
I do so much love my job......and the FCA & their "findings".
Their latest one is that they are "concerned" that advisors may be putting clients into certain products because of the ongoing advisor charges that can be received from said products that other products might not be able to facilitate......on the basis that as more & more advisors are "selling" their client book to larger advisory firms upon retirement they want to boost their fees as much ad possible as it is usually the ongoing fees being brought in that determines the sale price. ie, If an advisor has 100 clients that brings in £50k pa in ongoing fees then large advisory firm may pay 3x ongoing fees as a one off "retirement bonus".
And so you might ask what has prompted this from the FCA.............
They have found that non-advised clients are more likely to buy an annuity upon retirement, whereas advised clients are more likely to go into Drawdown.
Its a bit like saying that someone going to see their GP is more likely to get a prescription/medication for their illness than someone who sits at home & does nothing......and so GP's are bad news as they are costing people money.
You couldn't make it up.
But is it true that most non-advised take an annuity whereas most advised opt for drawdown?
It may be that drawdowners have bigger pots and other investments and annuity buyers less so and need security of income - and the former are more likely to seek advice due to their financial profile. In which case it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy but if not then it does need further analysis.
Possibly, but who knows. I suspect its more to do with the non-advised not being "in the know" and upon reaching retirement just take what their pension company is offering......which is an annuity as anything else would need advice. This is then partly down to the consumer thinking "nah, I dont need advice - pesky salesmen just trying to fleece me."
Sedni! (that's Czech for "sit"). The latest edition of BestInvest's very useful "Spot the Dog" analysis of misbehaving funds is available for your consideration. It's essential reading if you are managing your own fund portfolio, a great help in doing an annual health check.
They do contrast performances with "pedigree picks". Among other things, referencing recent discussions, you see several examples where fund managers can have both a Dog, and a Pedigree, even in the same sector. Look at Jupiter in the Asia Pacific sector. Jupiter Asian isa Dog, but Jupiter Asian Income is a Pedigree.
Of course we all know the biggest dog. Woodford! and that was in my kennel, but fortunately so are a lot of pedigree picks, including Lindsell Train Global Equity (picking up another recent discussion).
I agree with Will Self. I remember him on Question Time just after the banking crisis in 2008/09 & he said that instead of banks paying interest on savings that "savers" should have to pay banks to look after their money. This way people wouldn't be so keen on having thousands of ££££ in the bank just sitting there when instead it could be being used more productively for the economy.
I have many clients who think nothing of having £50k, £100k or more sitting on deposit "just in case". As a financial advisor I of course recommend that you have a "safety net" in case of emergencies. There are no hard & fast rules on how much this should be but a rule of thumb of between 3-6 months of usual monthly expenditure is about the norm. I usually advise £10k -£20k or so. Obviously depends on the individual & their circumstances but when a retired couple on a good pension (many of my clients have pension income of £40k pa +) have more than this then you wonder why they are happy receiving less than 1%pa "just in case".
I think the main problem is that a lot of people don't understand investments. They have heard about stockmarket "crashes" & pension scandals and think the best & "safest" place for their money is in the bank, often splitting it between 2 or 3 different banks as they dont want to exceed the £85k protection limit. The fact that (in the UK) the Government haven't let a financial institution fail for many many years escapes them.
Will be interesting to see what the B of E do in a couple of weeks time. More than half of The City institutions now think that interest rates will be cut next month.
If you want some idea why people don't want to pass their money to you to invest in the stock market, look no further than the last couple of days.
Months and months of slow, careful increases in my funds wiped out - and more - in a couple of days after the "kids" in the City come into work on the Monday and decide to have a panic about the coronavirus. Yet even the medical experts aren't clear about how bad the virus will be - and thankfully at the moment it doesn't seem to be killing a high proportion of those who get it - so how on earth can these market traders justify their fire-sale of stocks on this scale?
As I write, the Dow Jones is down another 850 points tonight and still falling. Another bloodbath on the horizon tomorrow as we simply follow the Americans lower again.
At times like this its hard not to think that investing in the stock market is just fools gold..
I agree with Will Self. I remember him on Question Time just after the banking crisis in 2008/09 & he said that instead of banks paying interest on savings that "savers" should have to pay banks to look after their money. This way people wouldn't be so keen on having thousands of ££££ in the bank just sitting there when instead it could be being used more productively for the economy.
I have many clients who think nothing of having £50k, £100k or more sitting on deposit "just in case". As a financial advisor I of course recommend that you have a "safety net" in case of emergencies. There are no hard & fast rules on how much this should be but a rule of thumb of between 3-6 months of usual monthly expenditure is about the norm. I usually advise £10k -£20k or so. Obviously depends on the individual & their circumstances but when a retired couple on a good pension (many of my clients have pension income of £40k pa +) have more than this then you wonder why they are happy receiving less than 1%pa "just in case".
I think the main problem is that a lot of people don't understand investments. They have heard about stockmarket "crashes" & pension scandals and think the best & "safest" place for their money is in the bank, often splitting it between 2 or 3 different banks as they dont want to exceed the £85k protection limit. The fact that (in the UK) the Government haven't let a financial institution fail for many many years escapes them.
Will be interesting to see what the B of E do in a couple of weeks time. More than half of The City institutions now think that interest rates will be cut next month.
If you want some idea why people don't want to pass their money to you to invest in the stock market, look no further than the last couple of days.
Months and months of slow, careful increases in my funds wiped out - and more - in a couple of days after the "kids" in the City come into work on the Monday and decide to have a panic about the coronavirus. Yet even the medical experts aren't clear about how bad the virus will be - and thankfully at the moment it doesn't seem to be killing a high proportion of those who get it - so how on earth can these market traders justify their fire-sale of stocks on this scale?
As I write, the Dow Jones is down another 850 points tonight and still falling. Another bloodbath on the horizon tomorrow as we simply follow the Americans lower again.
At times like this its hard not to think that investing in the stock market is just fools gold..
Depends when you invest. Invest regularly over the long term you'll do fine.
I trod in something recently........ we won the CACT quiz, the following day I won the daily draw on Valley gold and last week I cashed my S&S ISA (well sold the funds into cash) as transferring it to HSBC! So it's a buy buy buy from me.
Roll on Premium bond day, i'm just about as near a dead cert to win as you can get!
I can well understand your frustration. It does often seem like the markets are traded by teenagers on crack. But history tells us @Rob7Lee is right. One reason is, there is so much money sloshing around the world looking for returns, and now more than ever it isn't getting them from cash deposits. The crack fuelled teenagers will have their panic, and then they will, over a period of time come back into the markets, because there is nowhere else to go, they are not paid to do nothing, and companies like Unilever are still selling stuff people need, and paying dividends.
So for us mug punters the best way in is to invest a fixed amount each month, same day each month. Or, if you have some cash on hand now to invest, (as i do after a massive mess when switching SIPP platform during the referendum time) stick a bit in now, then again if markets drop, say, another 3%, and then again if they drop a further 3%, etc. If you have a horizon of 5 years, almost certainly you'll soon see your funds back to where they were, but you own more of them so your holding is bigger.
I agree with Will Self. I remember him on Question Time just after the banking crisis in 2008/09 & he said that instead of banks paying interest on savings that "savers" should have to pay banks to look after their money. This way people wouldn't be so keen on having thousands of ££££ in the bank just sitting there when instead it could be being used more productively for the economy.
I have many clients who think nothing of having £50k, £100k or more sitting on deposit "just in case". As a financial advisor I of course recommend that you have a "safety net" in case of emergencies. There are no hard & fast rules on how much this should be but a rule of thumb of between 3-6 months of usual monthly expenditure is about the norm. I usually advise £10k -£20k or so. Obviously depends on the individual & their circumstances but when a retired couple on a good pension (many of my clients have pension income of £40k pa +) have more than this then you wonder why they are happy receiving less than 1%pa "just in case".
I think the main problem is that a lot of people don't understand investments. They have heard about stockmarket "crashes" & pension scandals and think the best & "safest" place for their money is in the bank, often splitting it between 2 or 3 different banks as they dont want to exceed the £85k protection limit. The fact that (in the UK) the Government haven't let a financial institution fail for many many years escapes them.
Will be interesting to see what the B of E do in a couple of weeks time. More than half of The City institutions now think that interest rates will be cut next month.
If you want some idea why people don't want to pass their money to you to invest in the stock market, look no further than the last couple of days.
Months and months of slow, careful increases in my funds wiped out - and more - in a couple of days after the "kids" in the City come into work on the Monday and decide to have a panic about the coronavirus. Yet even the medical experts aren't clear about how bad the virus will be - and thankfully at the moment it doesn't seem to be killing a high proportion of those who get it - so how on earth can these market traders justify their fire-sale of stocks on this scale?
As I write, the Dow Jones is down another 850 points tonight and still falling. Another bloodbath on the horizon tomorrow as we simply follow the Americans lower again.
At times like this its hard not to think that investing in the stock market is just fools gold..
World stockmarkets fell around 10% between Sept 2018 and Jan 3rd 2019. Since then they are up over 20%. Falls will be short lived but the gains will be longer.
You will always hear of the big "crashes" but you never hear of the slow recoveries that take place soon after.
During the week of Black Monday in Oct 1987 the FTSE100 & the Dow Jones saw falls of 20%........but both markets finished the year higher than they started.
Anyone pulling out now is a fool. Now is the time to be investing.
One of the reasons why there has been panic selling is that a lot of companies in China are shut & at the moment can not export their goods. Hi tech companies & motor manufacturers cant get their products out to Europe & the US. Nothing to do with city wide boys just taking their red pencils out & devaluing stocks.
This is a great chart. Saved it to my Twitter bookmarks when it emerged.
Markets behave like a gigantic herd of investors. Just like herds, investors get complacent. Herds can panic. Potential predators can scare them into moving one way or another. And then they move quickly. The markets simply facilitate this move. And some of those threats are real. This week has been a panic move to a perceived threat that was probably under-priced. It may be that this virus will tip the world into recession. Or we may get on top of it, or it will die out soon. In the mean time, people will be intelligently guessing about the impact on the economy and markets will move up and down with sentiment until real figures start to come out and the impact can be more accurately priced in. Then the world and markets will adjust to those fundamentals.
But in the long term, markets are moved by fundamentals and the biggest fundamental is that the world is becoming more populous and, if they adopt market economies, richer all the time. This money is multiplied by productivity and Einstein's 8th Wonder of the World, compounding, increases it some more. As @PragueAddick says, that money has to go somewhere and that's why, in the long term, markets will continue to go up (unless the world decides to abandon the idea of democratic, market economies).
@WishIdStayedinthePub forgot Twitter offers bookmarks, good call, and will follow this guy. Mind you he has posted another interesting chart...what do you think about that (I don't get my head around bond markets at all well, despite several Lifers' attempts to help me)
@WishIdStayedinthePub forgot Twitter offers bookmarks, good call, and will follow this guy. Mind you he has posted another interesting chart...what do you think about that (I don't get my head around bond markets at all well, despite several Lifers' attempts to help me)
FS. My Santander 123 account interest rate goes tits up, Premium Bonds paying out less, my share holdings are going South and the exchange rate is on the slide. What next?
@WishIdStayedinthePub forgot Twitter offers bookmarks, good call, and will follow this guy. Mind you he has posted another interesting chart...what do you think about that (I don't get my head around bond markets at all well, despite several Lifers' attempts to help me)
The Ftse topped out at 6930 in 1999 and we're now below that.
Fair point but you need to look at total returns for the FTSE, which include dividends to be fair. Today's equivalent price would be just over 14,000 - roughly double or an annualised return of 3.7%. Not brilliant, particularly compared to a lot of other markets but still better (just) than leaving the money in the bank. Other time frames have been better - you've picked a peak and a pull-back there. I think the average return is 7-8%. If you follow Prague's rule - dripping in money, then your returns should manage that due to pound cost averaging.
I'm not a big fan of the FTSE 100 (he says, despite being quite exposed to it right now). Too many large companies in the FTSE that don't take risks, don't invent anything innovative and behave much like bonds but with more risk. Better off in the S&P and Asia or small companies in the UK, that grow.
As for the bonds chart, that time frame includes ten years of quantitive easing and low interest rates. Pick most other time frames and I'm pretty sure the TRTN on S&P will be higher, NDX even higher. If rates ever rise (big if) or the dollar slumps (more likely) then the bond market will tank, take the stock markets with it but then the stock markets will recover more quickly. But it is a big debate as people keep calling the top of the bond markets (which are way, way bigger than the stock markets) and then the low interest rate environment carries on ...
@WishIdStayedinthePub forgot Twitter offers bookmarks, good call, and will follow this guy. Mind you he has posted another interesting chart...what do you think about that (I don't get my head around bond markets at all well, despite several Lifers' attempts to help me)
The Ftse topped out at 6930 in 1999 and we're now below that.
Fair point but you need to look at total returns for the FTSE, which include dividends to be fair. Today's equivalent price would be just over 14,000 - roughly double or an annualised return of 3.7%. Not brilliant, particularly compared to a lot of other markets but still better (just) than leaving the money in the bank. Other time frames have been better - you've picked a peak and a pull-back there. I think the average return is 7-8%. If you follow Prague's rule - dripping in money, then your returns should manage that due to pound cost averaging.
I'm not a big fan of the FTSE 100 (he says, despite being quite exposed to it right now). Too many large companies in the FTSE that don't take risks, don't invent anything innovative and behave much like bonds but with more risk. Better off in the S&P and Asia or small companies in the UK, that grow.
As for the bonds chart, that time frame includes ten years of quantitive easing and low interest rates. Pick most other time frames and I'm pretty sure the TRTN on S&P will be higher, NDX even higher. If rates ever rise (big if) or the dollar slumps (more likely) then the bond market will tank, take the stock markets with it but then the stock markets will recover more quickly. But it is a big debate as people keep calling the top of the bond markets (which are way, way bigger than the stock markets) and then the low interest rate environment carries on ...
@WishIdStayedinthePub forgot Twitter offers bookmarks, good call, and will follow this guy. Mind you he has posted another interesting chart...what do you think about that (I don't get my head around bond markets at all well, despite several Lifers' attempts to help me)
@WishIdStayedinthePub forgot Twitter offers bookmarks, good call, and will follow this guy. Mind you he has posted another interesting chart...what do you think about that (I don't get my head around bond markets at all well, despite several Lifers' attempts to help me)
Comments
If yes, then I would delve into the Lang Cat's recommendations. For usability it is difficult to beat Hargreaves Lansdowne, from what I have seen, but they are not the cheapest.
Another reason I need to pack up work before too long.
12,500 tax Free
12,501 to £50,000 at 20%
£50,001 to £150,000 40%
Earning less than £57,200 would mean you were only getting some of your relief at 20%. Therefore the possible change would increase that relief to 25% and reduce your deficit on losing the 40% reduced to 25%.
Their latest one is that they are "concerned" that advisors may be putting clients into certain products because of the ongoing advisor charges that can be received from said products that other products might not be able to facilitate......on the basis that as more & more advisors are "selling" their client book to larger advisory firms upon retirement they want to boost their fees as much ad possible as it is usually the ongoing fees being brought in that determines the sale price. ie, If an advisor has 100 clients that brings in £50k pa in ongoing fees then large advisory firm may pay 3x ongoing fees as a one off "retirement bonus".
And so you might ask what has prompted this from the FCA.............
They have found that non-advised clients are more likely to buy an annuity upon retirement, whereas advised clients are more likely to go into Drawdown.
Its a bit like saying that someone going to see their GP is more likely to get a prescription/medication for their illness than someone who sits at home & does nothing......and so GP's are bad news as they are costing people money.
You couldn't make it up.
It may be that drawdowners have bigger pots and other investments and annuity buyers less so and need security of income - and the former are more likely to seek advice due to their financial profile. In which case it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy but if not then it does need further analysis.
They do contrast performances with "pedigree picks". Among other things, referencing recent discussions, you see several examples where fund managers can have both a Dog, and a Pedigree, even in the same sector. Look at Jupiter in the Asia Pacific sector. Jupiter Asian isa Dog, but Jupiter Asian Income is a Pedigree.
Of course we all know the biggest dog. Woodford! and that was in my kennel, but fortunately so are a lot of pedigree picks, including Lindsell Train Global Equity (picking up another recent discussion).
Months and months of slow, careful increases in my funds wiped out - and more - in a couple of days after the "kids" in the City come into work on the Monday and decide to have a panic about the coronavirus. Yet even the medical experts aren't clear about how bad the virus will be - and thankfully at the moment it doesn't seem to be killing a high proportion of those who get it - so how on earth can these market traders justify their fire-sale of stocks on this scale?
As I write, the Dow Jones is down another 850 points tonight and still falling. Another bloodbath on the horizon tomorrow as we simply follow the Americans lower again.
At times like this its hard not to think that investing in the stock market is just fools gold..
I trod in something recently........ we won the CACT quiz, the following day I won the daily draw on Valley gold and last week I cashed my S&S ISA (well sold the funds into cash) as transferring it to HSBC! So it's a buy buy buy from me.
Roll on Premium bond day, i'm just about as near a dead cert to win as you can get!
I can well understand your frustration. It does often seem like the markets are traded by teenagers on crack. But history tells us @Rob7Lee is right. One reason is, there is so much money sloshing around the world looking for returns, and now more than ever it isn't getting them from cash deposits. The crack fuelled teenagers will have their panic, and then they will, over a period of time come back into the markets, because there is nowhere else to go, they are not paid to do nothing, and companies like Unilever are still selling stuff people need, and paying dividends.
So for us mug punters the best way in is to invest a fixed amount each month, same day each month. Or, if you have some cash on hand now to invest, (as i do after a massive mess when switching SIPP platform during the referendum time) stick a bit in now, then again if markets drop, say, another 3%, and then again if they drop a further 3%, etc. If you have a horizon of 5 years, almost certainly you'll soon see your funds back to where they were, but you own more of them so your holding is bigger.
You will always hear of the big "crashes" but you never hear of the slow recoveries that take place soon after.
During the week of Black Monday in Oct 1987 the FTSE100 & the Dow Jones saw falls of 20%........but both markets finished the year higher than they started.
Anyone pulling out now is a fool. Now is the time to be investing.
One of the reasons why there has been panic selling is that a lot of companies in China are shut & at the moment can not export their goods. Hi tech companies & motor manufacturers cant get their products out to Europe & the US. Nothing to do with city wide boys just taking their red pencils out & devaluing stocks.
HTH.
Institutional investors can make a fortune selling their shares at the start of this panic and buying them when it starts to subside.
Others will time it wrong and lose a lot of cash. Timing is everything.
Markets behave like a gigantic herd of investors. Just like herds, investors get complacent. Herds can panic. Potential predators can scare them into moving one way or another. And then they move quickly. The markets simply facilitate this move. And some of those threats are real. This week has been a panic move to a perceived threat that was probably under-priced. It may be that this virus will tip the world into recession. Or we may get on top of it, or it will die out soon. In the mean time, people will be intelligently guessing about the impact on the economy and markets will move up and down with sentiment until real figures start to come out and the impact can be more accurately priced in. Then the world and markets will adjust to those fundamentals.
But in the long term, markets are moved by fundamentals and the biggest fundamental is that the world is becoming more populous and, if they adopt market economies, richer all the time. This money is multiplied by productivity and Einstein's 8th Wonder of the World, compounding, increases it some more. As @PragueAddick says, that money has to go somewhere and that's why, in the long term, markets will continue to go up (unless the world decides to abandon the idea of democratic, market economies).
I'm not a big fan of the FTSE 100 (he says, despite being quite exposed to it right now). Too many large companies in the FTSE that don't take risks, don't invent anything innovative and behave much like bonds but with more risk. Better off in the S&P and Asia or small companies in the UK, that grow.
As for the bonds chart, that time frame includes ten years of quantitive easing and low interest rates. Pick most other time frames and I'm pretty sure the TRTN on S&P will be higher, NDX even higher. If rates ever rise (big if) or the dollar slumps (more likely) then the bond market will tank, take the stock markets with it but then the stock markets will recover more quickly. But it is a big debate as people keep calling the top of the bond markets (which are way, way bigger than the stock markets) and then the low interest rate environment carries on ...
In terms of reference sites, the following are very useful for perspective: from OU - https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth
This is another good one with great graphics .. http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/