‘I knew nothing when I started investing 40 years ago. Now my Isa is worth £1.7m'
Sign up to the weekly Investor Newsletter for exclusive analysis and content. View the best savings rates on the market right now.
In her 30s, Jane Perry took a leap of faith and poured her money into shares, despite knowing 'nothing' about investing.
Now at the age of 76, she has reached the status of Isa millionaire, with a portfolio worth £1.7m.
She urges everyone, in particular women, to invest, to make their hard-earned money go further.
In 1984, Perry was working at a market research bureau 'because that was the only company that didn't seem to discriminate against an unqualified woman arts graduate'.
She closely followed the privatisations of the 1980s, as state-owned businesses such as BT and British Gas were floated on the stock market and millions of ordinary people became investors for the first time.
'I came from a family that had absolutely no experience of the stock market at all and I was very dubious about it,' she explains.
But she asked a colleague who was 'older, richer and wiser' to explain how it worked.
'I took a deep breath, drained my cash savings account and put in an order for an awful lot of BT shares,' says the mother of two.
In the 1980s personal equity plans were introduced to encourage savers to invest in British firms. A Pep allowed you to invest in shares or investment trusts and receive income and capital gains tax-free. They were replaced with Isas in 1999.
Perry opened her Pep with NatWest in 1987, putting in £2,400, and made her first investment in consumer goods giant Unilever, which today owns iconic brands such as Marmite, Persil, Dove and Colman's mustard.
But later that year Black Monday struck and the stock market crashed. She was so unimpressed with NatWest's handling of the crisis that she moved her Pep to Alliance Trust Savings (now part of stockbroker Interactive Investor) after using the trade press and national newspapers to research the best options.
'They offered to manage a Pep for you for free as long as you bought at least one Alliance Trust share, and if they were running it for free I could afford to buy a few shares,' she says, 'Even if Alliance Trust (now renamed Alliance Witan) was completely disastrous, I was avoiding the high costs of NatWest.'
Perry, who lives in London with one of her sons, put half her original sum into Unilever shares, and the other half into communications company WPP.
The next monthly standing order that she opted for was a regular investment into Foreign & Colonial, Britain's oldest investment company.
Perry discovered which investment trusts were doing well and how to invest her money through the Association of Investment Companies, the trade body for the sector, which printed monthly newsletters and hosted events. She appreciated their 'unbiased' nature: 'You were never quite sure if someone else was recommending something because they had an interest in it.'
Despite having been a complete novice, Perry says she quickly became sure of herself.
As she grew in confidence, she started attending the AGMs of the firms she invested in: 'They invited you for a chat and a glass of wine and they were very pleasant events.'
Perry didn't come from a large amount of family money, and was 'always slightly averse to spending it unnecessarily'.
'We were not very rich when I was a child and I never wanted to be poor,' she says, explaining her motivation for investing so there was 'no danger of running out of money in the future'.
She didn't choose a cash savings account because she didn't anticipate ever having to withdraw her money in an emergency. She had a steady job and was confident in her investments.
My biggest mistake
In her 40-plus years of experience, only one investment trust investment turned out badly, she says: the Woodford Patient Capital trust. Launched by former star fund manager Neil Woodford, who suffered a spectacular fall from grace, it is now known as The Schroders Capital Global Innovation Trust.
The fund has lost 90pc of its value since it launched, with losses mounting after Mr Woodford's investment empire collapsed in 2019.
Perry has invested the maximum allowed each year and has only ever made one withdrawal – £150,000 a few years ago for a family emergency.
Her returns 'fluctuated' but she always reinvested dividends and 'the magic of compounding ensured that the total value went up relentlessly'.
Looking forward, Perry is thinking about how she can leave her wealth to her sons in the most tax-efficient way possible. She has already signed her home away to them but her Isa holds an even more special place in her heart.
'I have an emotional attachment to my Isa. I've had it for a very long time, it's done me very well. I don't want to break it up and give it away so I think that'll be the last thing to go.'
She retired in 2003 and now spends a day a week volunteering at the Victoria and Albert Museum, cataloguing jewellery collections. She has also written a book for the museum, Traditional Jewellery in Nineteenth-Century Europe and given numerous talks on what has become her specialist subject.
Perry has thrived in the still male-dominated world of investing and wants to encourage women to break free from cash Isas, which are incredibly popular but do not have the same potential to generate life-changing returns.
The so-called gender Isa gap stands at £6.6bn, according to HMRC. This gap is most pronounced among 30- to 39-year-olds, when women have 46pc less money invested than men.
'There are very few women that I meet on the investment trust AGM circuit. You see the same faces and meet the same people and they're almost all men,' says Perry.
Perry believes that women sometimes lack the confidence to start investing, and too often think that it's better suited to men.
'I would absolutely encourage women to invest. You don't have to know anything about it.
'Invest small sums regularly and pick a large global investment trust, they're easy enough to find, they've been around for years – centuries in some cases – their dividend is as secure as almost anything can be,' she advises.
Perry's advice: confidence is key.
'I've been through Black Monday, the dot-com crisis of 2000 and the banking crisis of 2008. Each time everybody says 'this time is different,' but it never is.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
18 minutes ago
- Daily Record
New call for full State Pension for half a million older people after Winter Fuel Payment U-turn
Around 453,000 pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government. Pension Credit – Could you or someone you know be eligible? Earlier this week the UK Government announced Winter Fuel Payments will be reinstated for over 9 million pensioners later this year. The U-turn and Chancellor Rachel Reeves Spending Review on Wednesday have prompted calls from the 'End Frozen Pensions Campaign' for the annual State Pension uprating to be reinstated for around 453,000 retirees living in countries which do not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government. The campaign said it would cost the UK Government just under £60 million per year to end this 'historic wrong'. The policy, which prevents State Pensions from being increased annually - to counteract the impact of inflation for UK pensioners living in certain countries - means some are receiving as little as £60 per week, far below the current £176.45 rate for the Basic State Pension for those living in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. John Duguid, Chair of the End Frozen Pensions Campaign, said: "The Government's U-turn on Winter Fuel Payments shows there is a common consensus that the most vulnerable in our society rely on such payments as essential lifelines during times of need. 'Victims of the Frozen Pensions scandal, who receive only a fraction of their full UK State Pension because they live in some countries overseas, should not be excluded from this rationale. Yet the Government's continued refusal to address this longstanding discrimination means they continue to suffer from often negligible levels of state support. 'These British pensioners, many of whom spent their working lives in the UK, receive on average just £60 per week compared to the more than £170 per week they would be entitled to in the UK, or a non-frozen country.' He added: 'Ending this historic wrong would cost just under £60 million per year. This would barely register in the overall State Pension budget. But this isn't only about cost, it is about the principle of treating British state pensioners fairly and equally. 'Similar to the Government's decision to reinstate Winter Fuel Payments, ending this scandal is the correct and morally just action to take. The Government should do right by those who paid fairly into the system, and ensure they have dignity in their retirement.' Last month, cross-party MPs united to intensify pressure on the UK Government over its refusal to reform the so-called 'frozen pensions' policy. Only British overseas pensioners living in specific countries - mostly within the Commonwealth - are impacted, in what Rebecca Smith MP described as "the ultimate postcode lottery'. Those in the USA see the same annual increase as British pensioners living in the UK or France, while those in Australia or Canada, see their State Pension remain 'frozen' and effectively fall in value. For example, 100-year-old Second World War veteran Anne Puckridge, who lived and worked in the UK until the age of 76 and served in all three of the RAF, Navy and the Army, has received just £72.50 per week since 2001, the year she moved to Canada to be nearer her daughter. Jim Shannon MP similarly questioned the logic of the policy applying in only some countries and not others, arguing 'the arbitrary distinction between countries with and without an operating agreement lacks logic and smacks of red tape and bureaucracy gone mad." The Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell MP, was mostly notably challenged on the estimated cost of ending the policy, which is estimated at £60m per year - 0.04 per cent of the annual State Pension budget - rather than the £950m per year quoted by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The difference explained by the fact the DWP are quoting for uprating and backdating payments to account for the years affected pensioners have been frozen. However, campaigners are instead asking to receive the annual increase from this point onwards. Douglas McAllister MP stressed that campaigners and supportive MPs are 'not seeking a full backdating, but for the Government to introduce some form of yearly indexing to answer that injustice'. Longterm critic of the policy Sir Roger Gale MP argued the policy is 'not a matter of cost. It is a matter of moral responsibility and duty.' The Minister was also reminded by a number of MPs that 'the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy's existence prior to moving overseas'. State Pension payments 2025/26 Full New State Pension Weekly payment: £230.25 Fortnightly payment: £460.50 Four-weekly payment: £921 Annual amount: £11,973 Full Basic State Pension Weekly payment: £176.45 Fortnightly payment: £352.90 Four-weekly payment: £705.80 Annual amount: £9,175 Future State Pension increases The Labour Government has pledged to honour the Triple Lock or the duration of its term and the latest predictions show the following projected annual increases: 2025/26 - 4.1% (the forecast was 4%) 2026/27 - 2.5% 2027/28 - 2.5% 2028/29 - 2.5% 2029/30 - 2.5% Article continues below Recent analysis released by Royal London revealed only around half of people receiving the New State Pension last year were getting the full weekly amount - and around 150,000 were on less than £100 per week.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Porn Britannia, Xi's absence & no more lonely hearts?
OnlyFans is giving the Treasury what it wants – but should we be concerned? 'OnlyFans,' writes Louise Perry, 'is the most profitable content subscription service in the world.' Yet 'the vast majority of its content creators make very little from it'. So why are around 4 per cent of young British women selling their wares on the site? 'Imitating Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips – currently locked in a competition to have sex with the most men in a day – isn't pleasant.' OnlyFans gives women 'the sexual attention and money of hundreds and even thousands of men'. The result is 'a cascade of depravity' that Perry wouldn't wish on her worst enemy. In business terms, however, OnlyFans is a 'staggering success', according to economics editor Michael Simmons. 'Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting'; OnlyFans might just be Britain's most profitable tech start-up. 'If we are going to wage a moral war on porn,' Simmons argues, 'we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing.' Louise and Michael joined the podcast to discuss further (1:21). Next: could Xi Jinping's time be up? Historian Francis Pike writes about the unusual absence of China's President Xi. China-watchers have detected some subtle differences from the norm in Chinese media, from fewer official references to Xi to changes in routine politburo meetings. So, could Xi Jinping be forced to step down? And if so, who is on manoeuvres and why? Francis joined the podcast alongside former diplomat Kerry Brown, professor of China Studies at King's College London (22:31). And finally: is the era of the lonely hearts ad coming to an end? Tony Whitehead provides his notes on lonely hearts columns this week, writing about how, 330 years after they first appeared in print in Britain, they may soon disappear. Francesca Beauman – who literally wrote the book on the subject, Shapely Ankle Preferr'd – and Mark Mason join the podcast to provide their favourite examples, from the serious to the humorous (35:13). Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BT won't cancel my internet and now I've had my MORTGAGE rejected: CRANE ON THE CASE
My girlfriend and I separated in late 2024 and moved out of our shared home. Ending the BT broadband contract proved ludicrously difficult. When I called, the person said there was an 'issue with the account' and they couldn't close it. I was put on hold and no one ever came back. This happened at least five more times between December 2024 and February 2025. In February, I cancelled my direct debit in the hope this would trigger a response from BT. I eventually I got a letter saying my service would be cut off - great. I called to settle the remaining balance, which was £296 including bills for the months that had elapsed and a fee for cancelling mid-contract. But again, I was told my account couldn't be closed and left hanging on the phone. Last month, I got a letter saying BT had handed my account to a debt collector. I spoke to BT once more, and it said it would write off the balance as a gesture of goodwill and close the account - but I've since learned that still didn't happen. I'm now buying my first home, and just have been rejected for a mortgage because of unpaid debts with BT. My credit rating is otherwise excellent. B.S Helen Crane, This is Money's consumer champion, replies: First things first, I want to call out the telecoms firm for its total incompetence in your case. It is outrageous that BT's inability to cancel your £33 per month broadband contract led to you being rejected for a mortgage. You were never told why your account 'couldn't be cancelled'. You had been more than clear on the phone that you would happily pay the early exit fee, and also pay for the router, which you couldn't return because had got lost in your house move. This amounted to about £200 - but dismantling a collective life after a break-up is a slog and you just wanted to cross the internet off your to-do list. BT didn't seem to want to accept your offer, though, and instead gave you the run-around for months. As you still had a year and a half left on your contract, I do wonder whether leaving people hanging when they phone up is a tactic to prevent them from cancelling. Cutting off a direct debit without telling the payee first is never advised. That is because it can lead to situations such as yours, where companies turn to debt collectors and credit ratings are affected. That said, I completely understand why you did it. For months you'd been paying BT for broadband no one was using, in a home you no longer lived in. You'd given the company much more than a fair chance to take what you owed, and it had ignored you. It felt like the only way you could get a response. Somewhere along the way, someone at BT seemed to acknowledge this - as when you called again they agreed to write off your remaining balance as an apology for the way you'd been treated. But that never happened, and you were stunned to find that this ended up in a failed mortgage application. I can only imagine how stressful and upsetting that was, especially as you were a first-time buyer. This could have derailed your house purchase, for which you'd diligently saved a £50,000 deposit. I contacted BT to ask why on earth this happened, and tell it to sort out the mark on your credit report without delay. Not only could this lose you the home you wanted, but mortgage rates are moving quickly and you could end up locked into a more expensive deal if they began to rise. I'm glad to say that BT did close your account, waive the debt and contact the relevant credit agencies to remove it from your record. You have now had a mortgage approved with a new lender, and are on the way to completing on your home. However, there are two things I still don't think are right. First, BT never explained why it wouldn't close your account, simply sticking to the line that there was 'a problem'. And second, it only paid you £100 compensation for this ordeal. It will cost you much more, as you ended up taking a mortgage with a higher rate, as well as an £1,000 arrangement fee. That said, you were pleased to get it sorted and move on. A BT spokesman said: 'We're sorry B.S's experience with us fell below the high standards of service we always strive to deliver for our customers. 'We have now cancelled the debt in question on the account and offered him a gesture of goodwill to acknowledge his experience. He is happy his complaint has been resolved, and this has now been closed.' The mystery of the disappearing John Lewis voucher In January, my work colleague welcomed his first baby and I organised an office collection to buy him a John Lewis voucher. I ordered the £120 online gift card to my work email before forwarding it to his. In April, the colleague told me that he had tried to spend the voucher online, but the balance was zero. We've both spoken to John Lewis and it said the voucher was spent in February on the purchase of a laptop, in circumstances we thought sounded suspicious. But we were told John Lewis won't be refunding the balance because this was a case of 'human error'. We don't understand what that means and I'm sad that the money I collected from my team has been stolen. A.H, West Midlands Gift grift: The John Lewis voucher this reader gave his colleague was stolen Helen Crane replies: Working out how someone got their hands on this voucher has been a real puzzle - but one thing that is certain is that this sounds very suspicious. On one conversation with John Lewis, you learned that the £120 balance from your gift card was then added to an existing gift card, which had collected the balance from four other cards to total a balance of £500. This was then used to purchase the laptop, which was later returned for a refund. I have written before about the ways physical gift cards can be hijacked by fraudsters, but accessing the balances of online ones is trickier. In the case of John Lewis, vouchers are sent to an email account and have a long gift card number and a Pin, which must both be entered to make a purchase online. One theory is that someone hacked into your colleague's emails, and got the code for the voucher that way. However, you spoke to your employer and there is no evidence of this having happened. While it is impossible to be certain, you work for a company that holds lots of sensitive data. In the event of a hack, you told me, a stolen John Lewis voucher would be the least of your worries. There are other possibilities, too. According to Norton Antivirus, computer bots exist which allow fraudsters to exploit the online gift card balance checks used by retailers. These bots scan the websites for active cards, and can test more than a million card and pin combinations each hour. Once working combinations are obtained, they can be used by the scammer or sold on the dark web. This is one of the theories that circulated regarding the Nectar card scam. If your colleague's voucher was stolen in this way, I'd argue it is a failure of John Lewis' security and you should be paid back. Frustratingly, when I contacted John Lewis, it refused to confirm how your colleague's gift card account was compromised. It said: 'We're really sorry to hear about [his] experience. We take security very seriously and have measures in place to protect our gift cards, with each having a unique number and Pin which only the receiver has access to.' It also said the voucher was delivered to your colleague successfully and that Pins can only be accessed via the receiver's email. John Lewis staff do not have access to these. It added that when you were initially told the fraud was due to 'human error,' that was not correct. I then contacted Voucher Express, the company which operates the voucher scheme on behalf of John Lewis and other retailers. It said the matter had already been addressed by John Lewis. Sadly, it's still not clear what has happened here.
