Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

I am a bit ignorant on funds?
chubby bunny
Posted: 15 March 2017 14:20:28(UTC)
#43

Joined: 31/10/2016(UTC)
Posts: 72

Thanks: 38 times
Was thanked: 86 time(s) in 45 post(s)
Frenchman 96;44654 wrote:
This is out of my league, so I assume I need to find the cheapest platform and add the 0.15 to the platform charge, am I correct.


Yes. Cheapest platform depends on what kind of investments you will be holding, how much you plan to invest and how frequently you deal.

Here are some resources to plug numbers into and help figure out which platform would be best for you:

http://www.comparefundplatforms.com/compare.aspx

https://drive.google.com...KI1UzlfTDV3VG1XX1U/view
Alan Selwood
Posted: 15 March 2017 14:21:55(UTC)
#44

Joined: 17/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,269

Thanks: 416 times
Was thanked: 3192 time(s) in 1283 post(s)
Frenchman 96;44654 wrote:
Hi Guys

I have now decided that Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex UK Equity Index is a good way to start investing in funds, discovered by me from this forum.

Can anyone conform, that the fee of 0.15 charged by Van is great, but to deal with them direct, the minimum investment is £100k.

This is out of my league, so I assume I need to find the cheapest platform and add the 0.15 to the platform charge, am I correct.


Try buying through iWeb or Halifax Share Dealing (sister platforms), since they don't seem to charge an annual platform fee. If they let you use the I Class units, you're well away!
Jeff Liddiard
Posted: 12 April 2017 17:00:45(UTC)
#5

Joined: 20/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 358

Thanks: 1049 times
Was thanked: 190 time(s) in 108 post(s)
King Lodos;44080 wrote:
S Dobbo;44073 wrote:
Quote:
So in all, there are good reasons to invest as cheaply as possible ... But at the same time, people love certainty, and have clutched onto low-cost index investing like it's the Holy Grail ... You can make just as strong arguments that it's lack of diversification that's going to kill most people's returns going forwards.


The thing is there are so many index funds & ETF's covering every asset and sector, there is no reason why you cant be diversified using just physical trackers.

How about core trackers:-
Global Large Cap Tracker
Global Small Cap Tracker
Global Consumer Staples ETF (These tend to heavily weighted to US)
Regional trackers as desired.
High Yield Bond Tracker.
Gold Tracker.

Satellite trackers:-
Health care
Commodities
Etc.

Some areas it might be worth using IT's or OEICS where proven track records are higher. And a capital preservation fund as well PNL, Trojan or RICA). Having trackers for the core and where possible must be beneficial, this is why Lifestrategy has taken off so much.


Oh of course. I use passive wherever possible because it takes manager risk out of the equation.

But over here we're still a little limited .. e.g. Value is the most robust way to generate long-term outperformance, but we have very few options in that space.

And even in the US, where people do buy Value and Small-Cap Value trackers, the MSCI Value index isn't constructed properly, and doesn't capture the Value premium. (The MSCI and Vanguard version is basically just the cheap half of the market, and to capture the premium you need to go for the really cheap end of the market.)

These are 'dumb' funds, but they can have some really dumb human management behind them .. They can also carry fees that don't make them much better than active funds pursuing the same closet strategies.

What I like about the active fund space is competition .. If you're not capturing the value premium properly, you'll hire a manager who does .. Sometimes that will justify a fee.


The problem I see with trackers, as examples, Lifestrategy 100% = 52% return over 3 years (Trusnet figures), LS 80% 44%, FTSE All World VWRL 56% which are, I accept, reasonable returns, but Funsmith is 99% and SMT is 91%. So there does appear to be more to be had with these two very popular managers.
xcity
Posted: 12 April 2017 20:44:57(UTC)
#45

Joined: 12/04/2015(UTC)
Posts: 385

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 348 time(s) in 180 post(s)
Alan Selwood;44662 wrote:
Try buying through iWeb or Halifax Share Dealing (sister platforms), since they don't seem to charge an annual platform fee. If they let you use the I Class units, you're well away!

I don't think the HL Fund and Share account has a platform charge either. It does.
Mickey
Posted: 13 April 2017 07:17:29(UTC)
#47

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 286

Thanks: 615 times
Was thanked: 254 time(s) in 131 post(s)
There is a 0.45% charge for funds in the Fund & Share a/c with a reduction above £250,000. No holding charge for Investment Trusts and ETF's.

http://www.hl.co.uk/help#charges-and-fees

Mickey
1 user thanked Mickey for this post.
xcity on 13/04/2017(UTC)
markus
Posted: 13 April 2017 09:41:31(UTC)
#6

Joined: 02/11/2015(UTC)
Posts: 54

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 41 time(s) in 29 post(s)
Jeff Liddiard;45759 wrote:


The problem I see with trackers, as examples, Lifestrategy 100% = 52% return over 3 years (Trusnet figures), LS 80% 44%, FTSE All World VWRL 56% which are, I accept, reasonable returns, but Funsmith is 99% and SMT is 91%. So there does appear to be more to be had with these two very popular managers.


you're never going to shoot the lights out with funds like Lifestrategy, but you may get a smoother ride over alonger time period & not get stuck in a dog of a fund wondering whether to wait for it to turn around or ditch it & risk moving into another dog of a fund.

How much longer can the managers keep generating those returns in Fundsmith, SMT?
Which fund will set you up for the next 50-90% return over 3 yrs?

nobody knows for sure

I'm trying to move my pot so its largely comprised of Lifestrategy with the remainder in low cost funds/IT
1 user thanked markus for this post.
Jeff Liddiard on 13/04/2017(UTC)
xcity
Posted: 13 April 2017 11:03:03(UTC)
#48

Joined: 12/04/2015(UTC)
Posts: 385

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 348 time(s) in 180 post(s)
Mickey;45782 wrote:
There is a 0.45% charge for funds in the Fund & Share a/c with a reduction above £250,000. No holding charge for Investment Trusts and ETF's.

Thanks. I don't hold funds and hadn't managed to drill through to the charges.
It does mean that if I ever want to hold funds I will go elsewhere unless one of my HL accounts has shrunk below the point at which the cap hits.
Mickey
Posted: 13 April 2017 11:50:34(UTC)
#49

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 286

Thanks: 615 times
Was thanked: 254 time(s) in 131 post(s)
xcity;45792 wrote:
Mickey;45782 wrote:
There is a 0.45% charge for funds in the Fund & Share a/c with a reduction above £250,000. No holding charge for Investment Trusts and ETF's.

Thanks. I don't hold funds and hadn't managed to drill through to the charges.
It does mean that if I ever want to hold funds I will go elsewhere unless one of my HL accounts has shrunk below the point at which the cap hits.


There was an interesting thread recently that there's little point just looking at the broker costs, it showed you have to look at the costs of the fund, any broker discount and the holding costs. In some cases HL or another broker may surprise and be cheaper than holding the same fund with a broker offering a lower holding charge. It all gets very complicated so I just concentrate on returns :-)
King Lodos
Posted: 13 April 2017 16:01:25(UTC)
#7

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,326

Thanks: 212 times
Was thanked: 1428 time(s) in 643 post(s)
markus;45787 wrote:
Jeff Liddiard;45759 wrote:


The problem I see with trackers, as examples, Lifestrategy 100% = 52% return over 3 years (Trusnet figures), LS 80% 44%, FTSE All World VWRL 56% which are, I accept, reasonable returns, but Funsmith is 99% and SMT is 91%. So there does appear to be more to be had with these two very popular managers.


you're never going to shoot the lights out with funds like Lifestrategy, but you may get a smoother ride over alonger time period & not get stuck in a dog of a fund wondering whether to wait for it to turn around or ditch it & risk moving into another dog of a fund.

How much longer can the managers keep generating those returns in Fundsmith, SMT?
Which fund will set you up for the next 50-90% return over 3 yrs?

nobody knows for sure

I'm trying to move my pot so its largely comprised of Lifestrategy with the remainder in low cost funds/IT


The big problem Lifestrategy solves is investor behaviour..

If Fundsmith and SMT are due periods of underperformance (and long-term, no sector really edges ahead of any other), then chances are you hold on waiting for performance to turn around; the media starts asking "Has x lost his touch?"; the fund drops its star ratings; no one's recommending it anymore; and you're either selling, or you're buying what's been doing well for the past 5 years..

This constant rotation into yesterday's winners defines active fund investing, and means most investors underperform the likes of Lifestrategy by far more than they realise.

The problem with Lifestrategy is it's concentrated in the two most expensive asset classes: US equities and treasuries (the two most heavily trafficked parts of the market)..

The question is whether there's any benefit tilting away from the market (e.g. towards Value, Small-caps, Emerging Mkts or Private Equity) or risk's priced correctly? .. I'd perhaps consider 5-10% in Gold – quarterly rebalance – with a Lifestrategy fund, and maybe the same Private Equity.

2 users thanked King Lodos for this post.
Jeff Liddiard on 13/04/2017(UTC), Guest on 13/04/2017(UTC)
3 PagesPrevious page123
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets