Should ISA investors be forced to hold UK shares?

Speculating about what will be in this year’s Budget is fairly pointless, not least because the plans clearly change every few days. But the persistent chatter that the chancellor would like to coerce or persuade private investors to hold a minimum level of UK stocks in their individual savings accounts (ISAs) is worth a brief thought. To declare my bias, I think this idea is daft and not just because of the headache of deciding what’s British enough. International miner Anglo American after it moves its headquarters to Canada? An investment trust with half its assets in Asia? An exchange traded fund that tracks the S&P 500? The ISA rules are already full of nonsense – we don’t need any more.

The idea that ISA tax relief should be a quid pro quo for investing in British stocks misses the point. ISA and pension tax relief exists to get people to put aside money for their retirement and other needs. That money should be invested according to the balance of risk and reward for each investor. If that means no UK stocks, that is still the right outcome. If the government wants to save the UK market, it should work out why firms don’t want to list and investors don’t want to invest voluntarily, and fix that. Coercion is never going to be a better option than solving the underlying problems.

So one way of looking at this is that neutral exposure to the UK is somewhere around 5%. It would be less if we factor in emerging markets, but we get into some complications over access restrictions, so let’s keep this simple.