Best place for approx £60k?

rathernot wrote: »

I've no mortgage or debts to pay off, so it comes down to where to put it to get the best possible return whilst also being able to access it should I need to - though to be clear, I don't envisage needing to so I'd be happy to have a "loss of interest" penalty should I do so.

Depending on how long you're not going to need it for, why not stick it in equities? I'd only do this if I wasn't going to need it for at least 1 year since, in my personal opinion, equity markets aren't going to be going significantly down anytime soon. I'd go for FTSE 100 tracker or something similar - one of the least risky equity investments.

xyy123 wrote: »

I'd go for FTSE 100 tracker or something similar - one of the least risky equity investments.

A FTSE100 tracker is medium to high risk. FTSE100 trackers have also spent most of the last 14/15 years in the bottom quartile for performance.

What exactly did you do when you worked at Fisher Wealth Management, the company you keep telling us is so good on the Pensions board?

I really hope it wasn't advising!

Baldur wrote: »

You'd have to be a significant gambler or mentally unbalanced to even consider an equity tracker for a period of less than five years, to allow for fluctuations in market indices, etc.

I disagree. Equity markets go up 8 out of every 10 years roughly. FTSE 100 tracker pays roughly 3% yield which alone is better than cash and is the least risky equity investment (a global/foreign tracker has potential currency fluctuation added in).

Of course, the longer you hold equities for, the less risky it is and a year is not a long time. I was merely sharing my opinion that I do not think there is much significant downside to come over the next year so equities could be a viable option although there is obviously more risk with that timeframe.

jem16 wrote: »

A FTSE100 tracker is medium to high risk. FTSE100 trackers have also spent most of the last 14/15 years in the bottom quartile for performance.

I do not understand what you mean by this.

Saying FTSE100 trackers is medium to high risk takes no account of how long you hold the instrument for. I also do not like people who don't specify which risk they refer to. Clearly you're referring to risk to capital but there are other risks, such as risk of not achieving investment objectives.

I beleive Rollinghome aptly answered your point on quartile performance. 80%+ of managed funds do not even keep pace with the market and so index trackers tend to outperform them and charge less fees (and pay less commission to IFAs).

xyy123 wrote: »

FTSE 100 tracker pays roughly 3% yield which alone is better than cash and is the least risky equity investment

You must know better than that, surely? What about equity income or utilities subsets of the equity market?

Now, personally, I agree with you about likely prospects and have done very nicely from using lots of emerging markets, commodity equities and financials during 2009, as well as global and FTSE All-Share trackers. So far.

Still worth wondering if the person who asked the question is interested in the volatility of equities, something about which they haven't yet expressed an opinion. Their timeframe doesn't seem to be a rigid one year limit so equities might well end up being suitable once there's more guidance from them about term and risk issues.

xyy123 wrote: »

I disagree. Equity markets go up 8 out of every 10 years roughly. FTSE 100 tracker pays roughly 3% yield which alone is better than cash and is the least risky equity investment (a global/foreign tracker has potential currency fluctuation added in).

3% yield but the chance of capital loss which is not likely to happen with cash (which yes can have inflation risk but choose an account which keeps ahead)

Of course, the longer you hold equities for, the less risky it is and a year is not a long time. I was merely sharing my opinion that I do not think there is much significant downside to come over the next year so equities could be a viable option although there is obviously more risk with that timeframe.

It could be but could equally not be - it's a gamble. The OP might not be happy with this gamble.

Plus putting £60k into one fund increases the risk.

Clearly you're referring to risk to capital but there are other risks, such as risk of not achieving investment objectives.

Yes I was referring to capital risk. You only have to read the majority of posts on this forum who are complaining that their S&S ISA or pension has lost money to realise that most people are concerned about capital risk.