We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Isa lifetime?
Comments
-
dunstonh wrote:How are they not comparable? Both take lump sums, both provide a return which is subject to a profit margin. One you can see the profit margin, one you cannot. Risk is not an issue when it comes to charges.
There is a *vast* difference between lending money to a bank in return for an agreed rate of interest ( what they do with the money you have lent them and whether that brings them a profit is irrelevant ), and handing your money to a manager and not only paying him a fee but paying all the expenses as well, *regardless* of how well or badly your investment fares.0 -
Okay. I will disregard the knowledge obtained during my economics degree (albeit a very long time ago) and agree with you all that there is no difference between explicit charges and implicit charges and that savings accounts are provided with no profitability to the issuer and that they do it out of love
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
dunstonh wrote:Okay. I will disregard the knowledge obtained during my economics degree (albeit a very long time ago) and agree with you all that there is no difference between explicit charges and implicit charges and that savings accounts are provided with no profitability to the issuer and that they do it out of love
See that was not too hard ?..... You should know by now that there is a big difference between theory and practice especially in the investment world .... and yes, all you need is love 
0 -
dunstonh wrote:How are they not comparable? Both take lump sums, both provide a return which is subject to a profit margin. One you can see the profit margin, one you cannot. Risk is not an issue when it comes to charges.
Risk most certainly is an issue - in fact, it's *the* issue. Deposit accounts and investment funds are not comparable because the depositor of a lump sum into a savings/deposit account is exposed to virtually no risk ( apart from the obvious inflation risk ) - the *bank* is taking the risk by lending the money out to individuals/investing it, while paying interest on the deposit - whereas with a fund the investor takes *all* of the risk and pays the charges *as well* - the fund provider is getting a virtually risk free return on the *investor's* money! Thus the investor is not being fully rewarded for the risk he or she is taking.0 -
Especially if the fund provider is operating as a tracker fund in disguise :mad:.cheerfulcat wrote:the fund provider is getting a virtually risk free return on the *investor's* money!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards