Best FTSE Tracker Fund

Rollinghome

jamesd wrote: »

Rollinghome, here are the annual performance rankings from Trustnet for that fund:

2008: 77/328 first quartile
2007: 70/328 first quartile
2006: 213/328 third quartile
2005: 286/328 fourth quartile
2004: 278/328 fourth quartile

So maybe it's been less bad recently than in the past.

James, see above. The reason is the figures are for two diifferent funds/classes. There aren't any figures for the Retail fund beyond 3 years because it didn't exist.

The older figures are for the E fund with much lower yield/higher charges. Both the R fund and the E fund (E for Expensive?) are currently available.

Rollinghome

jem16 wrote: »

1. You each seem to be looking at a slightly different version of the fund.

Sort of right. Dunstonh is looking at two versions. The Retail one that's generally available and another with much higher charges called the E.

dunstonh

L&G only recently changed the 100 fund. The E version as it is now was the main version being used for data information last year. Had you looked at Fin Express/HL back then, the E version was the data being supplied. I wanted to stick with that one for consistency of data. (if you look, you will see the retail version has a history back to 2005 but the other versions go back to the original launch date). The charges are not a lot different. I would put - 1% p.a. as an average margin between them.

However, that still doesnt change the principle that FTSE100 funds have consistently underperformed the sector average and been more often at the bottom of the sector than the top. You can replace the L&G with any of the other fund houses and find them all in the same cluster.

The figures on the Financial Express/Trustnet site or the H-L site using the Financial Express feed properly identify the different funds so aren't ambiguous and certainly don't support the idea that the retail fund is "consistently" in the bottom quartile or bottom percentile.

The data supports the fact that they have spent most of the time at or near the bottom. Your problem is that history you are using doesnt go back far enough for that L&G fund. I am going back to 1995 but you are only going back to 2005.

Just to throw another FTSE100 tracker in , the F&C, that one in the last 12 years has
3 years in quartile 1
2 years in quartile 2
2 years in quartile 3
5 years in quartile 4
10 year cumulative was quartile 4

Rollinghome

So you knew all along there were two different funds and that the claims you were making did not apply to the L&G Retail fund that has been available for several years?

Why use data of a fund that no one in their right mind would buy instead of data from the normal Retail fund except to give a completely misleading impression?

Why would anyone sell the E fund (unless it pays advisers more commission)?

Your claim above that "FTSE 100 trackers have spent most of the last 15 years amongst the worst performing funds in the sector" is just plain wrong isn't it. You are basing that claim on just one L&G fund that charges exoritant fees, suggesting that it applies to all such funds, and ignoring all those that charge much lower fees.

I know you include a disclaimer in your sig but I think it is improper for someone calling themselves an IFA to deliberately give out misleading information on a public board. People are likely to assume that what you say is accurate and I think you should ensure that what you say does not cause misunderstanding.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

LThe data supports the fact that they have spent most of the time at or near the bottom. Your problem is that history you are using doesnt go back far enough for that L&G fund. I am going back to 1995 but you are only going back to 2005.

No Dunstan, they are two different funds. Don't you understand that?

The fund that has data going back 12 years has much higher charges and so knock it right back. Why quote those figures when it isn't the fund anyone would buy unless sold it by a dodgy adviser? They would buy the low cost Retail fund.

dunstonh

So you knew all along there were two different funds and that the claims you were making did not apply to the L&G Retail fund that has been available for several years?

I said I copied and pasted it from a thread made a while ago. That was the data being supplied at the time by L&G, Fin express and everyone else. I stayed with that fund to keep consistency. Plus, the current version L&G offer only goes back to 2005. It only has 2 complete calender years. The original fund goes back to 1995.

Why use data of a fund that no one in their right mind would buy instead of data from the normal Retail fund except to give a completely misleading impression?

Because it doesnt matter. It doesnt change anything

Why would anyone sell the E fund (unless it pays advisers more commission)?

Because that was the retail fund before. Nothing to do with commission.

No Dunstan, they are two different funds. Don't you understand that?

Its the same fund on a different charging structure as L&G lowered the pricing in 2005. If you bought the fund before then you didnt get the current version. Indeed, you probably still dont if you pay regular contributions and started before 2005.

Your claim above that "FTSE 100 trackers have spent most of the last 15 years amongst the worst performing funds in the sector" is just plain wrong isn't it.

You have presented no proof of that. I have. You keep saying they are not but nothing backs up what you are saying.

You are basing that claim on just one L&G fund that charges exoritant fees, suggesting that it applies to all such funds, and ignoring all those that charge much lower fees.

How about the F&C fund I also posted on? Why dont you check all the other FTSE100 funds for yourself rather than guessing?

I know you include a disclaimer in your sig but I think it is improper for someone calling themselves an IFA to deliberately give out misleading information on a public board.

You are the only person misleading anyone. Post the facts to back up what you are saying.

Your comments are also starting to take quite a nasty tinge to them and suggest you are posting with an anti IFA bias. Try sticking to facts rather than making anti adviser assumptions which are totally incorrect.

JRJ_2

I was hoping by reading this I would come away with some idea whether to invest in a FTSE tracker fund.
This has degenerated into probably the least helpful thread I've read!

Rollinghome

The original poster said "Hi, I'm looking for a FTSE tracker fund in which to invest."

So why would he buy other than the Retail fund? That is the fund he would be offered if he went to the L&G website. That is the fund he would get if he went to H-L etc. H-L don't offer anything but the Retail fund.

Does the fundsupermarket you use offer the expensive E fund?

ds1980

Ok enough of the crap....

Trackers are good because they cost relatively little and are fairly easy to set up. They give average joe (90%) the chance of stock market exposure without having to have much knowledge. You don't need a financial advisor to sort one out. Trackers are bad because they are a fixed choice and don't have a supposed expert picking stocks. They are computer driven.

Funds are bad because there is so much choice. You have to have quite a lot of knowledge about them and they are expensive. You often need someone to pick the right ones for you. Usually judged on past performance which is by no means a given. You have to make over 5% generally each year before you break even. Funds are good because there is a chance that they can run and generate larger profits (generally) than trackers.

As always its about buying and selling at the right time which 99.9 % of people can't and don't do.

I hold neither trackers nor funds.

dunstonh

The original poster said "Hi, I'm looking for a FTSE tracker fund in which to invest."

So why would he buy other than the Retail fund?

He wouldnt. He also said he was specifically looking at the FTSE100. Had it been all-share then there wouldnt have been any of the discussion. It was the 100 bit that led to this.

That is the fund he would be offered if he went to the L&G website. That is the fund he would get if he went to H-L etc. H-L don't offer anything but the Retail fund.

That is the fund he would get if he bought now. But not the fund he would have got had it been before Sept 2005. To get full data on that fund you had to use the fund that was available for that period.

It doesnt matter though. The point of the posting wasnt the version of the fund but to point out that limitations of the FTSE100 and its historic poor performance and why the FTSE all share is better option. You can pick any FTSE100 fund and the principle is the same. The placings may be a few above or a few below but they are all clustered in similar positions regardless of version of the fund or the fund house.

Does the fundsupermarket you use offer the expensive E fund?

I doubt it does since 2005. I assume it would have moved to the new version like all the others did. After all its the same fund.

Trackers are good because they cost relatively little and are fairly easy to set up. They give average joe (90%) the chance of stock market exposure without having to have much knowledge. You don't need a financial advisor to sort one out. Trackers are bad because they are a fixed choice and don't have a supposed expert picking stocks. They are computer driven.

Funds are bad because there is so much choice. You have to have quite a lot of knowledge about them and they are expensive. You often need someone to pick the right ones for you. Usually judged on past performance which is by no means a given. You have to make over 5% generally each year before you break even. Funds are good because there is a chance that they can run and generate larger profits (generally) than trackers.

You are correct. A FTSE ALL SHARE tracker is going to give you mid table performance consistently. You dont need to pick areas and therefore research isnt required. You are not going to get the best but you are not going to get the worst. However, if you start going into FTSE100 trackers (or 250) then you are starting to pick an area. e..g large caps or mid caps and are no longer investing in the general stockmarket. If mid caps are in favour you will do well (as they did during many of the growth years). If they are out of favour, you will drop down (as large caps did for much of the growth years and that was reflected in the poor performance of FTSE100 funds for much of that period).

So, a novice investor who wants simplicity should look at all-share and not 100.