Multi Manager Funds - Hargreaves Lansdown

Lokolo

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

I assumed it was obvious, but once again it proves impossible to underestimate the reading abilities of a select few!

I don't think there was any need for that. I was asking a question and you have yet to answer it. Oh wise one, clearly better than everyone else, please explain to me.

No-one else on this thread has explained it to me.... so I doubt its me thats got problems with his reading ability but maybe your ability to write clear structured sentences? *edit* - which make sense.

purch

Are you sure?

Well they all have a qualification that I don't have, nor have studied for (whether that counts as 'highly' or just qualified I'll leave to them to say)

dunstonh

purch wrote: »

Well they all have a qualification that I don't have, nor have studied for (whether that counts as 'highly' or just qualified I'll leave to them to say)

Just to set the record straight, there are 3 exams required to give mortgage advice and another 5 required to give investment advice as a minimum standard. That minimum is increasing from 2012 and will see another 4 exams. So, that will make it a total of 9 exams and would be a level 4 qualification which I understand to be somewhere between A level and Degree.

Dooooooooooooooonut

And it will be of just as high a quality as modern A levels and Degrees :rotfl:

Aegis

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

And it will be of just as high a quality as modern A levels and Degrees :rotfl:

Pretty high then. After all, the material in numerical a-levels and degrees is generally pretty difficult to grasp.

nifta

just to get back to the original subject...

so i'm a bit confused.. i'm in pretty much the same position as the original poster - want to put some money in investments, but also quite ignorant of the details.. i too was looking at the HL MM funds.

this is a really dumb question, but when people say their annual charges are too high, how do you figure that out?

to invest in, say, invesco high income by itself, HL says their annual charge is 1.5% (http://www.h-l.co.uk/funds/fund_key_features/sedol/3303126)

to invest in their HL MM Balanced Managed fund the annual charge is 1% (http://www.h-l.co.uk/funds/fund_key_features/sedol/0589048)

i assume i must be looking at the wrong numbers here...? or do the numbers mean different things?

purch

It's the Total Expense that you should focus on...

For the HL MM fund you highlight it is 1.89% which isn't outrageous, but for their Special Situations MM Fund I think it is about 2.1%

RayWolfe

nifta wrote: »

this is a really dumb question, but when people say their annual charges are too high, how do you figure that out?

to invest in, say, invesco high income by itself, HL says their annual charge is 1.5% (http://www.h-l.co.uk/funds/fund_key_features/sedol/3303126)

to invest in their HL MM Balanced Managed fund the annual charge is 1% (http://www.h-l.co.uk/funds/fund_key_features/sedol/0589048)

Your figures are correct. What you haven't done is add them together! Which is what happens with this type of fund.

nifta

thanks for the replies, guys.

you're right, RayWolfe, i wasn't adding them together.. that makes quite a difference!

fimonkey

oh now I'm confused.. what do you mean adding them together? If I choose a fund with an annual charge of 1%, what am I adding that to if that's the only thing I pay into? (regardless of whether its HL MM balanced fund, or one fund on its own such as aforementionde invesco)?