Investors choosing between Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF(PPA 0.25%) and ARK Space & Defense Innovation ETF(ARKX +0.37%) may weigh the lower costs of PPA against the more aggressive, technology-focused strategy of ARKX.
Both funds target the final frontier, but they take different trajectories. Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF tracks a concentrated index of domestic aerospace and defense companies, providing exposure to traditional military contractors. In contrast, ARK Space & Defense Innovation ETF is an actively managed fund that casts a wider, more speculative net across orbital and suborbital technologies.
Snapshot (cost & size)
Metric
ARKX
PPA
Issuer
ARK
Invesco
Share price
$32.30 (as of 2026-07-08)
$175.51 (as of 2026-07-08)
Expense ratio
0.75%
0.58%
1-yr return (as of 2026-07-08)
33.7%
24.6%
Dividend yield
None
0.4%
Beta
1.41
0.74
AUM
$1.1B
$8.6B
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
ARK Space & Defense Innovation ETF charges 0.75%, making it the more expensive option compared to the 0.58% fee for Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF. These costs represent the annual management fees deducted from fund performance to cover administrative and oversight expenses.
Performance & risk comparison
Metric
ARKX
PPA
Max drawdown (4 yr)
(25.6%)
(15.4%)
Growth of $1,000 over 4 years (total return)
$2,337
$2,557
What’s inside
The Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF is an industrials-heavy portfolio with approximately 90% of assets concentrated in that sector. Its largest positions include GE Aerospace(GE +0.72%)at 7.3%, RTX Corp(RTX 0.04%) at 7.2%, and Boeing Co.(BA 0.64%) at 7.1%. It holds 62 different securities and was launched in 2005. It focuses on companies systematically important to U.S. national security and government space operations, favoring established firms with significant defense contracts.
The ARK Space & Defense Innovation ETF leans more toward the technology sector, which accounts for 24% of its weight, although industrials still represent 59% of the portfolio. Its top holdings include Space Exploration Technologies(SPCX +2.39%) at 8.8%, L3Harris Technologies(LHX 1.55%) at 6.5%, and Rocket Lab Corp at 6.4%. It holds 45 securities and was launched in 2021. It seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing in companies leading orbital and suborbital space innovation, including firms that use satellite technology for terrestrial applications such as precision agriculture.
Which fund is the better buy?
While these ETFs cover the same sector, they differ significantly from one another.
The key difference between the Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF — PPA — and the ARK Space & Defense Innovation ETF — ARKX — is that PPA is a passively managed ETF meant to reflect an index, the SPADE Defense Index, while ARKX is actively managed, meaning a person or team is making decisions to shift assets among its investment landscape. Indeed, the weightings of ARKX’s top 10 holdings change frequently, such as the addition of SpaceX since its IPO on June 12.
The active hand is paying off. The year-to-date return of ARKX is about 11.5%, with a 33.7% one-year return. PPA has performed decently, with year-to-date and 1-year returns of 12.2% and 24.6%, respectively.
Longer-term PPA has respectable 5-year and 10-year returns of 19.4% and 17.8%, respectively. ARKX has a 10.2% 5-year return (and no 10-year return given its age).
The long-term results of PPA are a strong argument for that fund. But If you trust that the active managers who have posted a good 1-year return are acting on skill and insight, then the ARK Space & Defense Innovation ETF is the better choice.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
Amazon has dropped the Sonos Ace Noise Cancelling Wireless Over-Ear Headphones to $279, down from $399. Shipping is free.
These premium headphones feature Dolby Atmos with dynamic head tracking, lossless audio over Bluetooth or USB-C, active noise cancellation, up to 30 hours of battery life, and rapid charging that provides up to 3 hours of playback from a 3-minute charge.
BUY NOW
Guru’s Wrap-up
If you’re looking for premium noise-cancelling headphones with excellent sound quality and long battery life, this is a solid deal. I usually go for the cheaper stuff myself.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made through this article. Using links on the site for Amazon purchases is the best way you can support the site as you normally can’t earn cash back for these purchases. But, you should still check shopping portals such as Rakuten, TopCashback, RebatesMe, ShopBack and others for possible cashback. Your support is always greatly appreciated!
Mortgage rates moved higher this week, as Treasury yields moved off of last week’s low as investors had concerns not just over the Iran ceasefire but also inflation.
Processing Content
The 30-year fixed rate mortgage averaged 6.49% as of July 9, the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey reported. This was up from last week when it was 6.43%. However, a year ago this product averaged 6.72%.
Meanwhile, the 15-year FRM averaged 5.82%, versus 5.79% a week ago, and 5.86% for the same period last year.
“Mortgage rates have not changed much recently, but economic growth and housing affordability continue to improve for homebuyers as they shop for homes in today’s market,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac chief economist, in a press release.
However, when bond investors shift their views on inflation or economic growth, it is more likely to cause a shift in the 10-year Treasury and mortgage rates typically follow within days, said Kyle Bass, production business manager at Refi.com, in a statement.
This is why this week’s movement in the Freddie Mac PMMS “is worth understanding because many homeowners assume the Federal Reserve’s decisions drive their mortgage rates,” Bass said. “That is not quite how it works.”
Recent Mortgage Banker Association Weekly Application Survey activity shows how quickly borrowers have been responding to yield-driven rate changes.
“The demand is significant, but it is activating in short windows rather than building into a sustained trend,” Bass said. “This surge-and-retreat pattern is what a window market looks like in practice, and it has defined refinance activity throughout the spring and into the summer.”
As tracked by Optimal Blue mortgage rates have been trending higher, even before this latest hiccup in the Iran conflict.
On June 26, the conforming 30-year FRM hit its recent low point of 6.41%. Since then, for the most part, the rate has been climbing and on July 8, got to 6.57%.
Lender Price data posted on the National Mortgage News website had the 30-year FRM at 6.78% as of 11 a.m. on Thursday morning, 1 basis point lower from 24 hours earlier. A week earlier, the rate was 6.62%.
The 10-year yield closed at 4.57% on July 8, up from 4.48% seven days prior and 4.42% on June 30.
While the failed ceasefire helped to drive the Treasury yields higher, “to be fair, rates were likely to rise anyway,” Kate Wood, NerdWallet’s lending expert, said in a Thursday morning statement. “Even without the latest fighting, inflation remains a concern, and Wednesday’s minutes from the June meeting of the Federal Reserve showed at least some of the central bankers were already on board with a rate hike.”
While inflation data to be released next week is expected to show a slight improvement, the renewed hostilities could render those numbers moot. “For now, it feels like the best case scenario is mortgage rates increasing slowly rather than spiking,” Wood said.
While Zillow increased its rate outlook, the change was due more to secondary market considerations, although the increase in the 10-year Treasury also had an impact.
“Zillow’s forecast is for rates to ease only gradually, drifting to roughly 6.3% by the end of 2026,” said Kara Ng, senior economist at Zillow Home Loans, in a Wednesday night comment. “This modest upward revision to the forecast is partly driven by government-sponsored enterprise purchases of mortgage-backed securities falling short of market expectations, which dampened a source of downward pressure against lingering inflation.”
If rates end the year at this point, it would be higher than last fall and winter. This means “affordability could shift from a tailwind relative to last year to more of a headwind, especially when comparing listings and sales,” Ng said.
Is your company’s outsourced AI technology leaving it vulnerable to unexpected risk? As enterprises increasingly embed third-party systems into their workflows, technological risk has led to new legal and operational responsibilities. Leaders may have little visibility into how a model was trained or how it changes, yet when it discriminates, mishandles data, or harms a customer, regulators and plaintiffs often look first to the company that deployed it.
Disclaimer
——————————-
This video is created solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on individual research. It should not be considered as financial, investment, or trading advice. We are not SEBI-registered investment advisors or analysts. Viewers are strongly advised to conduct their own research and consult with a SEBI-registered financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
As per SEBI’s study on the derivatives segment, nine out of ten traders in the Futures & Options (F&O) market incur losses, with the average loss-making trader losing significantly more than the profitable ones gain. Trading in derivatives involves substantial risk and is not suitable for all investors.
Regarding cryptocurrencies in India: Cryptocurrencies are currently not considered legal tender in India, but trading and holding crypto assets is not banned. However, they are unregulated, and the Government of India, RBI, and SEBI have repeatedly cautioned investors about the high volatility and risk of fraud. Crypto gains are subject to a 30% tax on profits and 1% TDS on transactions as per the current tax laws. Regulatory frameworks may change in the future, and viewers should stay updated with official guidelines before making any decisions in this space.
Stock market investments are subject to market risks, and past performance is not indicative of future results. We do not guarantee any profits or protection against losses. This content is for educational purposes only and is based on personal research. Viewers should always conduct their own due diligence before making any financial decisions.
By watching this video, you acknowledge that we and our representatives are not liable for any financial losses or decisions made based on the information provided. Always trade and invest responsibly.
When families map out how to pay for college, the conversation usually starts with federal loans and then jumps straight to the big national private lenders. Credit unions rarely come up in student loan conversations. That’s a miss, because for many borrowers, they can offer lower rates, simpler borrowing experience, and personalized service that many large national lenders can’t match.
In partnership with Student Choice, let’s dive into why a credit union might make the most sense to help you pay for college this year. Check out Student Choice here >>
Would you like to save this?
We’ll email this article to you, so you can come back to it later!
Rates That Hold Up Against The Big Lenders
Let’s start with the numbers, since that’s what most people care about. For the 2026-27 school year, federal student loans carry fixed rates of 6.52% for undergraduates, 8.07% for graduate students, and 9.07% for Parent and Grad PLUS loans — and PLUS loans add a roughly 4.2% origination fee on top of that.
Private student loans from credit unions, through a network like Student Choice, currently run as low as 2.99% APR.
Over a standard 10-year repayment term, that rate gap alone can mean paying roughly $2,056 more in interest on a $10,000 loan, about $5,141 more on a $25,000 loan, and about $20,562 more on a $100,000 loan, before factoring in any origination fees.
For families filling the gap after federal aid, a credit union loan often beats a Parent PLUS loan on both rate and fees — worth checking before you sign anything.
A Loan That Doesn’t Make You Start Over Every Year
One of the biggest frustrations with traditional private student loans is that you must apply for a new loan every academic year. That means another application, another approval decision, a new rate, and another round of paperwork – all while you’re already juggling classes, financial aid, and tuition deadlines.
Many credit unions offer something different: an education line of credit You get approved once for a borrowing limit that can be used over multiple years of school*. Draw from it as needed without a brand-new application and approval cycle every fall. Unlike taking out one large loan upfront, an education line of credit lets you borrow only the amount you actually need each semester. If your costs change because of scholarships, grants, or living arrangements, you simply borrow less helping reduce unnecessary interest over time.
We covered how that works in a previous article, but the short version is that it spares you the annual paperwork scramble and gives you a known borrowing ceiling to plan around. Lines are still subject to annual review and satisfactory academic progress, so it’s not unconditional, but it removes most of the friction of borrowing year after year.
Service Built Around Members, Not Shareholders
Credit unions are member-owned nonprofits, not investor-driven banks. Because of this, their goal isn’t maximizing profit for shareholders. Instead, they provide value to members through lower rates and fewer fees. It also often means you can reach a real person when a payment question comes up — something co-borrowers paying tuition for more than one child notice quickly.
You also don’t have to be a member to apply. With most credit union student loans, you can apply first and join once you’re approved, so membership eligibility isn’t a barrier to getting a quote.
See for yourself at Student Choice.
Easy To Compare, Easy To Refinance Later
The old knock on credit unions was that you’d have to track down each one individually. That’s no longer the case. Student Choice lets you answer a few questions about where you live, work, and go to school, then compare real rates from several credit unions at once — like how you’d shop with a national lender, but with member-owned institutions.
Bottom Line
Credit unions won’t be the right answer for everyone, and you should always max out federal aid first, since those loans carry protections private loans can’t match.
But once you’ve hit federal limits, used up all your scholarships, and you’re comparing private options, a credit union deserves a place at the top of your comparison list. Between competitive rates, the flexibility of an education line of credit you don’t have to reapply for, and personalized service built around members. Many families discover it’s one of the simplest and smartest ways to pay for college.
You can compare credit union rates through Student Choice to see what you’d qualify for.
Disclosures
*Subject to annual review and credit qualification. Must meet school’s Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements.
Editor: Colin Graves
The post Why a Credit Union Might Be the Smartest Place to Get a Student Loan appeared first on The College Investor.
The oil industry has spent more than a century pushing into new frontiers. Its engineers pulled crude from beneath deserts, oceans and frozen tundra. Its traders built markets that turned oil into the world’s most actively traded commodity.
Now a small crypto startup is trying to persuade the industry to experiment with a different kind of frontier: putting a barrel of oil on a blockchain.
The company, Energy Substantiation, wants oil suppliers to help support a digital token tied to physical crude. For decades, ownership of real-world barrels has largely been the preserve of producers, traders and large institutions. Energy Substantiation is seeking to open up the market to anyone with a crypto wallet and a small outlay.
“It is remarkable to me that people can own dollars and people can own gold, but they’ve never been able to own oil,” JP Thieriot, who is spearheading the idea as Energy Substantiation’s co-founder, said in an interview.
His startup is borrowing from a familiar playbook. Stablecoins digitized claims on dollars, growing from a fringe experiment into a system that settles trillions of dollars a year. Energy Substantiation is betting something similar can be done with oil — a far messier asset than the currency behind stablecoins.
Its WTIC token is designed to represent one barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude. Unlike oil ETFs or crypto perpetuals, the product is being pitched as a token backed by physical oil rather than futures or other derivative contracts. Investors can also trade it around the clock. Today, benchmark WTI and Brent crude futures trade primarily on CME Group Inc. and Intercontinental Exchange Inc., with markets closed on weekends. That has become a growing source of frustration for investors as developments in the Iran conflict occur before trading resumes, driving recent interest in products that lean on crypto’s always-on infrastructure to facilitate 24/7 oil trading.
Read More: CME, ICE Push US to Curb Crypto’s Oil Trading Upstart
But even if speculators are ready for it, an oil-backed token may be a tough sell to an industry built around physical assets. Thieriot recalls one early investor meeting where the idea was dismissed as an uneasy mashup of Texas business culture and crypto: “Bubba meets Bitcoin — it’s never going to work.”
For now, the vision remains far larger than the market. The on-chain value of WTIC currently stands at about $80,000, though the token is expected to debut on LMAX and receive an additional $1 million in liquidity down the road. Thieriot said the startup is working with about a dozen commodities firms and oil suppliers, including one major trading house, and is in talks with other exchanges and market makers.
How it works
WTIC is designed to track the price of West Texas Intermediate crude. Suppliers feed oil into the system through a reverse Dutch auction, which entails offering barrels at a discount to the day’s market price. The company says the tradeoff lets producers monetize operational inventories, including pipeline line fill and tank bottoms, that would otherwise generate little revenue. Investors can then buy and sell the tokens on blockchain networks, while new ones are created through a daily minting process.
Holders can redeem WTIC at the daily spot closing price, though the company does not expect many investors to take physical delivery of crude. Energy Substantiation says the structure allows the underlying oil to be treated as a spot commodity rather than a derivative, which the company says would subject it to lighter regulation.
“Launching a token is easy. The challenge is building a liquid market,” said Javier Molina, a crypto analyst at eToro. “Success will depend on if they can attract energy participants and not just crypto players.”
There is clearly demand for round-the-clock oil exposure, though much of it is already being met. On Hyperliquid, tokenized WTI and Brent perpetual futures have become the two most actively traded commodity products on the platform, with activity surging in the grip of the Middle East conflict. CME surprised industry participants — including its own regulator — with plans to offer 24-hour, seven-days-a-week trading in new, smaller crude oil futures by late August.
On top of pulling liquidity away from products that already exist, Energy Substantiation will have to ensure that blockchain ownership is legally enforceable in the offline world, said Christian Catalini, founder of the MIT Cryptoeconomics Lab. “For the market to be truly efficient, the bridge between online and offline record should have minimum counterparty risk. Otherwise you’re not trading the actual underlying asset, you’re essentially trading an IOU.”
In the making
Thieriot first pursued the idea more than a decade ago after helping build one of crypto’s earliest digital-dollar businesses. But unlike dollars or gold, crude posed major obstacles: storage is expensive, barrels differ in quality and oil moves constantly through a sprawling physical network.
The breakthrough came when Thieriot teamed up with financier and mathematician Donald Putnam, who developed a framework for converting different crude grades into a common energy unit measured in British thermal units. The model attempts to solve one of the industry’s oldest problems: treating unlike barrels as a single tradable asset.
The system also relies on inventory that typically sits inside the machinery of the oil business itself. Pipeline line fill, tank bottoms and other operational inventories are often carried on company balance sheets but generate little direct revenue. Energy Substantiation’s model attempts to monetize those dormant barrels while using them to back digital tokens.
“It’s the best beta you can get in the market,” said Eric Melvin, chief executive officer of Mobius Risk Group and a member of EnSub’s advisory board, referring to a measure of how closely an asset’s price tracks the broader market.
The idea remained largely theoretical until institutional acceptance of crypto, a friendlier regulatory environment and war in the Middle East pushed oil back to the center of investor attention just as Energy Substantiation prepared to launch.
“We dramatically underestimated retail in oil,” Thieriot said. In moments of geopolitical stress, the commodity “really does become a ticker for global instability,” he added.
Still, WTIC depends on producers maintaining sufficient inventories to back the tokens, something that is no longer a given as war-driven supply shortages undercut reserves. Energy Substantiation says operational inventories are unlikely to fall to levels that would threaten the energy complex, even during periods of market stress.
The company’s pitch has also drawn scrutiny in other ways. Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian, a sitting member of the agency that regulates the state’s oil and gas production, is a part of Energy Substantiation’s advisory board and personally emailed prospective investors ahead of the token’s launch, the Texas Tribune reported in April. Christian referred questions from Bloomberg to Energy Substantiation, whose spokesperson said he was invited to serve because of his “extensive knowledge of the energy sector” and does not direct the company’s day-to-day operations or business decisions.
The startup plans to introduce tokens backed by Brent crude and Henry Hub natural gas later this year. Whether those products succeed may matter less than what they represent. Stablecoins transformed dollars into internet-native assets. Projects like WTIC are attempting something similar with commodities, testing whether claims on physical resources can move as freely as digital money.
“At the end of the day, blockchain makes it all possible,” Thieriot said.
Update 7/8/26: New round of $200 bonus was sent out via email ([email protected]). Requires $1,000 in spend.
Update 6/26/25: new round of $300 bonus was sent out via email (from: [email protected]): Must get a new Apple Card by July 7, and spend $1,500 in your first 60 days.
The Offer
Check your emails for the following targeted offer: (subject: Preview your new Apple Card credit limit offer.)
Signup for Apple card by September 3, 2024, and get $300 after you spend $1,500 within 60 days.
Card Details
Card earns the following rewards:
Other details:
Our Verdict
Initially Apple Card offered no signup bonus at all, then they mellowed and started doing some smaller $50 – $100 bonuses; the highest we’ve seen before was a targeted $200. And so I was surprised to see this offer popped up in my email inbox – at $300 I might go for it. If you’re targeted, keep in mind this will count toward your 5/24 count for future Chase applications.
Deal History:
Update 3/10/25: There’s now a public offer at this link for $200 back. Valid through March 21. Each month through December you make 10 or more purchases and earn $20 Bonus Daily Cash. Total will be $200 if you meet all the months from March through December.
Update 3/6/25: Another round was sent out for $300 bonus. Must apply by 3/31/25.
Update 12/12/24: Another round was sent out for $300 bonus with $1,500 spend. Must apply by 1/13/25.
Update 9/4/24: The $300 offer just expired. Apple is now sending out a new targeted $200 bonus which is broken down to ten $10 bonuses for each month you make 10+ purchases, through June 2025. Not as high offer and more annoying, but it will be easier for those who don’t have a lot of spend volume to get a $200 bonus by doing 10 tiny transactions at the vending machine or self checkout each month.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
Key Takeaways
If no one can name who authorized a rule or why it exists, it’s probably not a real policy — it’s a habit wearing a costume. Kill it.
Each extra approval or check costs a minute. Multiply across every employee, every week, and you’re paying salaries to wait, not produce.
Removing friction is cheaper than buying growth. Cut the red tape you never approved before adding another headcount.
Every successful business relies on policies and procedures. Policies and procedures create consistency, improve quality and allow organizations to move in a unified direction.
For this reason, most successful companies have policies and procedures manuals and other written policies. Without them, companies become chaotic and inconsistent as they grow. But there is an important distinction between systems that are intentionally designed and those that simply evolve over time.
The most damaging policies in a business are often the ones that were never actually created.
These can be called made-up rules — unwritten practices that slowly become accepted as official policy, even when no owner, executive, or person with authority ever approved them. They emerge quietly and gradually. An employee assumes something is required in every circumstance. Another employee observes that behavior and repeats it. Before long, an entire department believes a process is a mandatory policy when, in reality, it is not at all.
As organizations grow, these unofficial rules have a way of growing. Each one may seem insignificant on its own, but together they create a layer of legalism that slows decision-making, frustrates employees, delays customer service and quietly limits growth. It can also upset employees by creating an abundance of rigid rules that make the employees feel restricted. Unlike obvious problems such as declining sales or rising expenses, these self-made policies and procedures are rarely visible on a financial statement. Yet, their impact can be enormous.
Good intentions can create bad processes
One of the biggest challenges is that these rules often originate from good intentions. An employee wants to avoid making a mistake, so an extra rigid rule is added to prevent a situation from repeating itself. In other instances, someone encounters an unusual circumstance and begins treating that exception as the standard procedure. Over time, isolated events become permanent rules that harm, not help the company.
The problem is that businesses rarely struggle because of one unique situation. Instead, hundreds of small, unnecessary rules accumulate over months and years. Each additional email, approval, signature, or verification adds only a minute or two. Standing alone, that seems inconsequential. Collectively, however, those minutes become hours, days and eventually weeks of lost productivity, revenue or efficiency across an organization.
Imagine an employee who must wait for an internal confirmation before beginning work, even though all of the information needed to proceed is already available. Perhaps no owner, CEO or senior leader required this waiting period. It simply became “the way we’ve always done it.” If that delay happens dozens of times each week across multiple employees, the organization begins paying people to wait rather than to produce. Customers experience slower service, revenue decreases and management wonders why the business feels less efficient despite hiring more people.
Growth often brings more red tape
This scenario becomes even more pronounced in growing companies. Startups often move quickly because communication is simple and decisions are made by a small group of people. As headcount increases, however, there is a natural temptation for mid or lower level employees to add more approvals, more meetings, more documentation and more checkpoints. While some of these additions are necessary, many are simply reactions to isolated situations rather than thoughtful improvements to the business as a whole.
Over time, employees begin confusing caution with excellence. Instead of asking, “What is the best way to accomplish this?” they begin asking, “What is the safest way to avoid criticism?” Those are fundamentally different questions. The first encourages innovation and efficiency. The second often produces bureaucracy and red tape out of a desire for self-protection.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of made-up rules is that no one takes responsibility for them. Ask employees why they follow a particular procedure, and familiar responses usually emerge: “That’s just what we’ve always done,” or “I thought that was company policy.” Continue asking questions, and it frequently becomes clear that no one can identify when the rule started or who authorized it. The process has simply taken on a life of its own.
Challenge every unwritten process
Business owners should periodically examine their organizations with fresh eyes. Rather than asking employees whether they are following procedures, leaders should ask why those procedures exist in the first place and who authorized them. Every recurring process should have a clear purpose. If no one can explain why a particular step is necessary, it deserves careful scrutiny. In many cases, the unwritten rule should be disavowed and eliminated.
One effective exercise is asking managers to identify the biggest obstacles that slow their teams each day. Their answers are often revealing. Employees are rarely frustrated by hard work. They are frustrated by preventable delays — waiting for approvals, tracking down information, duplicating work or complying with procedures that no longer serve a meaningful purpose. These bottlenecks consume time without creating additional value for customers or employees.
It is also important to recognize that removing unnecessary rules does not mean lowering standards. High-performing organizations absolutely need accountability, quality control and thoughtful procedures. The goal is not to eliminate structure. The goal is to eliminate red tape that adds complexity without improving outcomes. Every policy should either reduce risk, improve quality, enhance the customer experience or increase efficiency. If it accomplishes none of those objectives, or it creates more problems than it helps, it is reasonable to question whether it should continue to exist.
Speed is a competitive advantage
Business leaders often focus tremendous energy on generating more revenue. They invest in advertising, marketing, recruiting and technology to accelerate growth. Yet, they sometimes overlook the operational drag occurring inside their own organizations. A company can spend millions of dollars attracting new customers while simultaneously slowing those customers’ experience through unnecessary internal processes. Removing friction is often one of the least expensive — and most profitable — ways to improve performance.
In today’s competitive environment, speed has become a meaningful differentiator. Customers have more choices than ever before, and they increasingly expect prompt responses, efficient service and straightforward interactions. Organizations that eliminate unnecessary delays position themselves to deliver a better experience without spending additional money on customer acquisition.
The best leaders understand that their role is not simply to create new policies. It is also to challenge existing assumptions. They recognize that every process should earn the right to continue existing—and should not be professed as policy without the company specifically authorizing it. As businesses evolve, procedures that once made perfect sense may become outdated. Failing to revisit them allows yesterday’s solutions to become tomorrow’s obstacles.
Eliminate the unnecessary rules
Every organization accumulates unwritten rules over time. Meetings become longer, approvals become more numerous and workflows become increasingly complicated. Left unchecked, these changes gradually reduce the agility that once fueled growth. Successful companies recognize that maintaining operational excellence requires periodic auditing and removal of these unwritten rules. Just as businesses routinely evaluate expenses, marketing efforts and financial performance, they should also evaluate the rules employees create or follow every day.
Sustainable growth is not achieved simply by working harder or hiring more people. It is achieved by creating an organization where talented employees can perform meaningful work without being slowed by unnecessary red tape. The companies that consistently outperform their competitors are often not those with the most elaborate systems. They are the ones disciplined enough to remove the systems that no longer serve a purpose.
Sometimes the greatest improvement a leader can make is not introducing another policy. It is eliminating unwritten rules that were never approved in the first place.
Key Takeaways
If no one can name who authorized a rule or why it exists, it’s probably not a real policy — it’s a habit wearing a costume. Kill it.
Each extra approval or check costs a minute. Multiply across every employee, every week, and you’re paying salaries to wait, not produce.
Removing friction is cheaper than buying growth. Cut the red tape you never approved before adding another headcount.
Every successful business relies on policies and procedures. Policies and procedures create consistency, improve quality and allow organizations to move in a unified direction.
For this reason, most successful companies have policies and procedures manuals and other written policies. Without them, companies become chaotic and inconsistent as they grow. But there is an important distinction between systems that are intentionally designed and those that simply evolve over time.
The most damaging policies in a business are often the ones that were never actually created.
The Help-to-Buy (HTB) programme introduced in 2013 reopened the 95% loan to value (LTV) segment of the UK mortgage market, thereby reducing the minimum deposit requirement for many first-time buyers (FTBs) from 10% to 5% (Chart 1). That policy change offers a useful natural experiment to study how deposit constraints shape access to homeownership. We previously demonstrated that this easing of deposit constraints generated a clear increase in local spending. In a recent paper, we show that lowering this constraint increases FTB home purchases, particularly among households without access to external financial support for their deposit.
Chart 1: Share and number of ‘low deposit’ (95% LTV) FTB mortgages
Note: ‘Share’ is the share of FTB mortgages that are 95% LTV (ie 5% deposit) out of all FTB mortgages. ‘Number’ is the number of such FTB mortgages (in thousands). The shaded area indicates the HTB period.
The HTB programme
HTB included two main schemes that shared a 5% deposit requirement but differed in their design. Broadly speaking, the Equity Loan scheme (2013–20) applied to new-build properties only and involved the government taking an equity stake in the home. The Mortgage Guarantee (2013–16) was available for older properties and new-builds and involved the government providing a guarantee to the lenders.
On the face of it, the programme had a significant uptake. Over the period from 2013 to 2016, when both schemes were available, there were around 200,000 home purchases facilitated by HTB and this number was split evenly across the two schemes. HTB purchases represented 10% of all home purchases during the period.
But to properly understand the impact of HTB on home purchases we need a counterfactual. That is, we need to account for what would have happened to home purchases in the absence of the programme.
Methodology
Our analysis draws on the FCA’s Product Sales Database, covering all regulated UK mortgages.
We use a difference-in-differences strategy to identify the causal impact of HTB’s easing of credit constraints on FTB home purchases. The intuition is simple: we compare how FTB purchases changed before versus after 2013 in areas that were more exposed to HTB, relative to areas that were less exposed. Any UK-wide changes in the housing market around that time affect both sets of areas, so the key question is whether FTB purchases rose disproportionately more in places where HTB was more likely to bite.
To capture exposure to HTB, we calculate the share of mortgages with deposits below 10% in each local authority district before the financial crisis, when these mortgages were still widely available (Chart 1). Because housing market characteristics evolve slowly, districts with higher shares were likely to contain more households constrained by deposit requirements after these mortgages largely disappeared, and were therefore expected to respond more strongly once HTB reopened the 95% LTV market.
To examine who benefits from the easier access to mortgage credit, we distinguish between FTBs who could fund their deposit from their own savings from earnings and those who relied on additional financial support, such as gifts from family (‘Bank of Mum and Dad’) or inheritances.
Because these transfers are not directly observed in mortgage data, we construct a proxy of ‘financial support’. We compare a buyer’s actual deposit with an estimate of how much they could plausibly have saved themselves based on their income and age, using a deliberately generous assumption about savings behaviour. If the buyer’s actual deposit exceeds this estimate, we classify the buyer as ‘financially supported’; the buyer is otherwise classified as ‘unsupported’. This approach is similar in spirit to that used in another Bank Underground blog post.
Chart 2: Financial support and deposit size for FTBs
Note: The x-axis groups buyers by deposit size (as a percentage of the property value). The y-axis shows, within each deposit-size group, the share of FTBs classified as having ‘financial support’.
Chart 2 plots the share of FTBs classified as financially supported by deposit size. It shows that at the low end, only a small fraction of FTBs relied on outside funds. The share then rises steadily with deposit size, reaching about one quarter for 25% deposits and exceeding 50% once deposits surpass 40%. In other words, households without access to financial support disproportionately rely on low-deposit mortgages.
To look at the impact of credit constraints on FTB sales, we regress the district-level number of FTB sales on our exposure measure. We also examine the response of FTBs depending on their income, as well as whether they likely received financial support.
The impact of HTB on FTB purchases
First, HTB generated a marked increase in FTB purchases in more exposed districts.
Chart 3 shows how FTB purchases evolved in districts with different levels of HTB exposure. Prior to the introduction of HTB, FTB purchases followed similar trends in high and low-exposure districts. From 2013 onwards, they rose more strongly in districts where low-deposit mortgages had historically been more common.
To make estimates more intuitive, we compare a district with average exposure to one with the lowest exposure in our sample. In 2013, FTB purchases were about 16% higher in the average-exposure district relative to 2012. By 2018, this gap had widened to 45%, consistent with deposit constraints being a key barrier to entry.
Chart 3: The effect of HTB on FTB home purchases
Note: The line shows how the relationship between pre-policy exposure and FTB purchases changes over time. The shaded bands show the confidence intervals around the estimates.
The impact of HTB on the composition of new buyers
Second, the composition of new buyers shifted.
In high-exposure districts, the increase in FTB purchases was driven primarily by buyers who could fund their deposit from their own savings, rather than by buyers relying on additional financial support. In areas with average exposure, mortgage originations by unsupported FTBs rose by 45% relative to 2012. The number of supported FTBs increased by roughly 7%, but this effect is statistically insignificant.
Because unsupported buyers tend to have higher incomes, this also shifted the income distribution of new entrants to the right, reflecting the entry of households that were income-rich but liquidity-constrained.
Summing-up
These findings underscore the importance of deposit requirements in shaping access to homeownership. High deposit thresholds disproportionately exclude households without access to outside funds. By reopening the 95% LTV market, HTB lowered this barrier and enabled more households with sufficient income but limited savings to enter the housing market.
Our proxy cannot identify the precise source of additional funds and should therefore be interpreted broadly as capturing reliance on resources beyond a buyer’s own savings. In practice, however, parental transfers (the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’) are a prominent source of support for UK FTBs. The patterns we document therefore most likely reflect a reduced role of family wealth in determining who can become a homeowner.
A final point is that easing deposit constraints can affect both quantities and prices. While the results here show a strong increase in FTB purchases (especially among buyers without likely external support), our previous work showed that such credit expansions can contribute to higher house prices. For central banks, this highlights why understanding mortgage market constraints matters: changes in credit conditions can reshape who enters the housing market and influence wider housing-market dynamics.
Belinda Tracey works in the Bank’s Structural Economics Division and Neeltje van Horen works as a Professor of Financial Economics at the University of Amsterdam.
If you want to get in touch, please email us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or leave a comment below.
Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied. Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of England, or its policy committees.
Share the post “Credit constraints and housing market access”