will investment companies now move the goalposts

jdmchugh

Is it the case that Investments companies will now work very hard to drive our investments back up to worthwhile levels. I have an uncomfortable feeling they may be considering ways of closing our ISAs or whatever at their present low rates so that they need not strive to breath life into our diminished investments.

Rafter

Not sure I quite understand your question?

Investment companies make money out of the management charges on your investments, so they have every incentive both to try and retain funds invested and to grow these so that their management charges increase?

R.

dunstonh

I have an uncomfortable feeling they may be considering ways of closing our ISAs

An investment company has no control over your ISA. The ISA manager does and the ISA manager isnt where you invest (unless you happen to be in shares of the company that is also the ISA manager).

or whatever at their present low rates

Investments dont have rates. They have daily values.

jdmchugh

When the gist of my question is obvious it is not really necessary to correct the terminology used . I had expected the creator of say an ISA to have some influence on its continuance.Thank you anyway.

gozomark

jdmchugh wrote: »

When the gist of my question is obvious it is not really necessary to correct the terminology used .

I think you mean IF not WHEN - I've no idea what you mean

RayWolfe

- ditto -

nrsql

Think the OP is suggesting that we might start to see a lot of the worst performing funds being closed or merged so that the historic performance disappears and the new funds can start from scratch and appear to have better performance as the catch any upturn.

Would drive up the average performance of the sector, company, managed funds in general.

gozomark

fund performance is usually measured relative to other funds and to an index, not relative to cash, so closing funds because they are below their initial launch price is largely irrelevant

nrsql

gozomark wrote: »

fund performance is usually measured relative to other funds and to an index, not relative to cash, so closing funds because they are below their initial launch price is largely irrelevant

Not so - if a fund is doing badly compared to other funds or the sector and that fund gets closed and another opened then the bad fund disappears and the new fund has no history.

It does happen and is one reason why companies introduce new funds.

gozomark

nrsql wrote: »

Not so - if a fund is dog badly compared to other funds or the sector and that fund gets closed and another opened then the bad fund disappears and the new fund has no history.

It does happen and is one reason why companies introduce new funds.

isn't that the same as I said ? its what I meant - funds get closed because of relative peer performance, not absolute performance

nrsql

Well -absolute performance has something to do with it too. If a fund is doing well in absolute terms but badly relative to the sector that can still be valuable to the company.