Cautious manged funds

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

I'm fee based so it makes no difference to me.

You always rebate all the upfront and trail commission? That's not what you have said previously Mr D.

Or is that just a bit of IFA's playing with the truth?

Its completely false. Please produce your evidence to support that comment.

We've been over this often enough. You presumably earn money from having posted 23,869 posts here from the business you pick up and I fully understand your position and reason for arguing against low commission products. I don't.

I don't think this board should be hijacked with only the story from those who flog these funds being heard. Does that bother you?

dunstonh

You always rebate all the upfront and trail commission? That's not what you have said previously Mr D.

I have my fees but they are usually taken from the product. Some pay by cheque, some dont. However, the fee is fixed so there is no bias towards one fund or another. I also have a cap and collar on the fee as well.

I don't think this board should be hijacked with only the story from those who flog these funds being heard. Does that bother you?

I don't think this board should be hijacked with those with a clear bias who state information as if they are facts without providing any evidence.

You take little bits of information and spin it in anti adviser rubbish and choose to ignore facts which dont suit your argument. I have shown the evidence to support what I have said. Where is yours?

TBeckett100

its a bit sad to see IFAs trawling on the forums for clients on a sunday afternoon.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

I have my fees but they are usually taken from the product. However, the fee is fixed so there is no bias towards one fund or another.

That isn't what I asked is it? You claimed above that commission was not a factor for you because you were fee based. Do you charge an upfront fee then rebate all upfront and all trail commission?

Perhaps you should read what you've said before.

Personally I'd have a real problem doing business with someone who couldn't give a straight answer to a straight question. 'Yes' or 'no' would cover it. Want to try again?

TBeckett100

love to know whether the old keyfacts make an appearance when discussing payment of services. call it a fee then but really just rebate a bit of commission back and keep the trail.

dunstonh

I apologise to the OP. As you can see the anti IFA trolls have decided to take over your thread.

That isn't what I asked is it? You claimed above that commission was not a factor for you because you were fee based. Do you charge an upfront fee then rebate all upfront and all trail commission?

As I have said before, £1000 is £1000 whether its paid for by cheque or paid for out of the investment. It is not a factor one way or another as the remuneration is the same.

Personally I'd have a real problem doing business with someone who couldn't give a straight answer to a straight question. 'Yes' or 'no' would cover it. Want to try again?

You cant give a straight answer on this as there are times it suits coming from the product. pensions for example its best to have the fee taken from the pension. £1000 by cheque or £600/£800 (basic rate/higher rate) if from the pension due to tax relief being available against the fee. There is also no VAT to be concerned with from the product which may be the case with some transactions if paid by cheque.

So, the answer would be Yes when its appropriate and No when its not.

love to know whether the old keyfacts make an appearance when discussing payment of services. call it a fee then but really just rebate a bit of commission back and keep the trail.

Its a fee its an agreed level of remuneration. The FSA call it customer agreed remuneration (CAR).

Now, rather than trying to pick holes in how I am paid, which has no relevence to this thread, why not come back with some facts to support your views. At the moment your trolling it not helping the OP.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

I apologise to the OP. As you can see the anti IFA trolls have decided to take over your thread.

D, you are a former salesman for an insurance company or similar now working for yourself as an "IFA" I assume. Is that what they teach on the sales courses along with the "half-nelson" and other sales techniques: "When you're really cornered for an answer, resort to abuse"?

You cant give a straight answer on this...

No, you mean you can't give a straight answer on this and that should be duly noted by anyone considering doing business with you.

Now, rather than trying to pick holes in how I am paid, which has no relevence to this thread,

It does have relevance when you are using these forums to generate business and misleadingly claiming that commission is not a factor for you because "I'm fee based so it makes no difference to me".

I'm sorry D, you are well-informed as required for your job, but I really don't think such evasive and misleading double-talk does you any credit and throws into question everything you say. I would certainly only use an adviser whom I was sure was not in the habit of attempting to mislead and didn't resort to silly namecalling of "troll" when caught out. Obviously it doesn't reflect well on the whole profession.

jem16

earlgrey wrote: »

It does have relevance when you are using these forums to generate business

Do you have any evidence to support this claim or is it just your idea that this must be happening? From what I can see a lot of people have benfited from his free advice on this forum which would be a far less useful place without it.

I would certainly only use an adviser

You ignored my earlier question so I'll ask again;

Have you ever used an IFA? If you have what is your problem with them?

Obviously it doesn't reflect well on the whole profession.

Nor does it reflect well on this forum that your main argument for tracker funds is supposedly because IFAs don't make any money out of them.

Perhaps if you provided supporting facts we'd take your argument more seriously and could make an informed choice.

Aegis

earlgrey wrote: »

D, you are a former salesman for an insurance company or similar now working for yourself as an "IFA" I assume. Is that what they teach on the sales courses along with the "half-nelson" and other sales techniques: "When you're really cornered for an answer, resort to abuse"?

Your claims about index trackers and managed funds are incorrect. Anyone looking at places like Citywire and Trustnet can see that the managed funds run by competent investment houses generally outperform the index trackers by a significant margin in nearly all sectors. This is verifiable by anyone who wishes to look, and it makes a complete fabrication of the Motley Fool's position that trackers are almost invariably better, along with anyone else who holds this position. It's only by completely ignoring the actual performances that people can say with a straight face that trackers actually have equal or better performance than the good managed funds in the long run.

I've seen this pointed out on many occasions to the pro-tracker crowd, but I've never actually seen a satisfactory rebuttal other than to go back to the same original statement that most managed funds underperform compared to the index, which is false.

It's really sad that you've decided to attack someone who generally offers very good advice for what I can only assume are personal issues with another adviser somewhere in the past. As someone who learned how to invest partly from reading this forum, I'm very glad for what I've seen dunston tell people about investing for no personal gain whatsoever, and I'm very glad I didn't listen to the people like you who seem to have these biases against managed funds and IFAs for no good reason whatsoever. A little research on my part confirmed that what dunston told me was true, and that what the Fool website said about managed funds was misguided at best and outright fiction at worst.

All in all, my investments have withstood the declines in the market a lot better than any index trackers would have done lately, and I have several IFAs who have posted on this website to thank for their initial (free) advice to me.

cloud_dog

kevin09061960 wrote: »

Hi folks
I am feeling really uncomfortable with the cautious managed fund I set up with the halifax 3yrs ago, my wife an I have invested over 31k in class c shares ie uk growth, uk equity, corporate bonds, international growth and cautious manged and have never made a penny, at present our plan is only worth just over 28K and am thinking about cutting our losses and pulling out to reinvesting in guaranteed fixed interest bonds/cash Isa's etc. My fund manager thinks I am mad? has anyone any advice PLEASE???

Disclaimer - I value DunstonH posts, may not agree with everything, but value them.

Kevin, getting back on track............ There really isn't enough information in your post to offer any sensible view as to what you could do or options to take. For example:

• Is this investment money the bulk of your 'savings'
• Do you have adequate savings (not investments)
• How old are you / wife - what are your longer term plans?
• Do you have adequate pension arrangements
• What is your risk profile (what is your attitude to risk, i.e. is a 20% drop acceptable?)
• etc, etc

Have to admit I'm not a big fan of constraining my investment thoughts due to management charges; if the fund is performing well, consistently, then I'm happy for the fund manager(s) to take their cut.

As mentioned previously TrustNet and CityWire are good places to review how your investment funds are performing. If you are not able / willing to spend time reviewing investmen t performance then you need to go via an IFA not a bank / tied agent.

cloud_dog