Fisher Wealth Management

jem16

xyy123 wrote: »

Again demonstrating your ignorance. Type in "wealth management" in Google - they're on the first page.

So are St James' Place - but then I wouldn't want to go to a company where some of its advisers pretend to be IFAs either.

By the way Harold Shipman covers the first page of Google - does that make him a good recommendation for those looking for a doctor? :rolleyes:

You are a spammer with nothing substantive to contribute whatsoever

To be a spammmer you have to be actively promoting something.

What exactly is Myrmidon_J promoting?

xyy123

jem16 wrote: »

So are St James' Place - but then I wouldn't want to go to a company where some of its advisers pretend to be IFAs either.

By the way Harold Shipman covers the first page of Google - does that make him a good recommendation for those looking for a doctor? :rolleyes:

You have missed the point. I was illustrating that seeing as FWM comes up on the first page/hit for a generic search, why would they employ people to market their services on a money saving forum?? I can actually tell you that they DO promote their website in a way so that they appear on the first page/hit under certain searches (I don't know how). It wasn't any allusion to how good/bad they are.

It makes no odds to me whether you believe I work for them or not. But frankly, why would I be posting on a SATURDAY!?

I posted to help people make their decision and gave my views on them as an investment manager. Having experience in the industry (including working for SJP incidentally) I think they are a good option for most people but not necessarily for everybody because they way they work is quite different and unique.

For those of you who are still interested in this aspect of the thread, rather than accusatory posts about underhand advertising tactics, they are a potentially good option if:

1. You have more than £250k liquid assets
2. You have investment objectives of predominately growth for 7+ years - if not they won't take you on, or you may have a blended benchmark/portfolio (see below)
3. You are comfortable with discretionary management - they don't do advisory or execution
4. You won't lose sleep being 100% equity (generally 60-140 different stocks, benchmarked on MSCI world)

The comments about me working for them are getting boring.

jem16

xyy123 wrote: »

It makes no odds to me whether you believe I work for them or not.

I don't really care one way or another if you work for them. However 8/10 posts that you have made is about them. Have you nothing to contribute in other areas?

But frankly, why would I be posting on a SATURDAY!?

BT company reps post on a Saturday - what's your point?

Having experience in the industry (including working for SJP incidentally) I think they are a good option for most people but not necessarily for everybody because they way they work is quite different and unique.

........

1. You have more than £250k liquid assets

4. You won't lose sleep being 100% equity (generally 60-140 different stocks, benchmarked on MSCI world)

Not many people around who have more than £250k to invest and are happy being 100% in equities.

SnowMan

xyy123 wrote: »

I could go on all day about the pros and cons of how they work (they aren't perfect) but all you need to remember is that they only work on an annual management fee so the only way they can make more money out of you is by growing your pot. They win if you win and lose if you lose. And their performance has been pretty good over the long term. If you need to know anything else, let me know.

So the annual management fee is a percentage of total funds. So if the investor's funds reduce in value or do worse than comparative funds then the investor clearly loses. But surely Fishy Wealth management still get their percentage of the funds invested, so Fishy don't lose.

So what do you mean they lose if the investor loses? Or by "they lose" do you mean they gain by very slightly less than if the funds had performed well as the % is applied to a slightly lower fund figure. Might be the way charges apply generally in the investment industry but is certainly not a case as you misrepresent of investor loses Fishy lose is it? And hardly unique.

And how much is this annual charge by the way?

And I note a distinct lack of any evidence on the Fishy website that the funds have performed well. Just seems to be a lot of waffle and complete tripe to me.


If that's all people need to remember then it is not very impressive is it? :rotfl:

And are you saying your spam is not spam if you post it on a Saturday?

Myrmidon_J

xyy123 wrote:

You are a spammer with nothing substantive to contribute whatsoever.

I've made over 200 posts on a wide range of topics. Whilst I am by no means an "expert" and claim no particular monopoly on knowledge, at least I attempt to share what I do know for the benefit of MSE readers.

You, on the other hand, have contributed very little other than blatant spam; you post infrequently and appear to dredge up dead threads solely in order to publicise Fishy Wealth Management.

Frankly, you're a ****.

jem16 wrote:

What exactly is Myrmidon_J promoting?

I have no idea...
Maybe someone could tell me; then I could charge for my (apparent) services!

For those of you who are still interested in this aspect of the thread...

Nobody is interested.
Go away.

SnowMan wrote:

Just seems to be a lot of waffle and complete tripe to me.

Coincidentally, exactly what xyy123 is posting... They have taught you well.

And are you saying your spam is not spam if you post it on a Saturday?

This is the most illogical statement ever! :rotfl:
Opportunity for airing dirty laundry, perhaps...

I'm sure there's a pun in there about fish on Friday / spam on Saturday, but my mind turned to mush when I read xyy123's posts so alas - I cannot contribute.

xyy123

SnowMan wrote: »

So the annual management fee is a percentage of total funds. So if the investor's funds reduce in value or do worse than comparative funds then the investor clearly loses. But surely Fishy Wealth management still get their percentage of the funds invested, so Fishy don't lose.

So what do you mean they lose if the investor loses? Or by "they lose" do you mean they gain by very slightly less than if the funds had performed well as the % is applied to a slightly lower fund figure. Might be the way charges apply generally in the investment industry but is certainly not a case as you misrepresent of investor loses Fishy lose is it? And hardly unique.

Yes you're right in a way. If their AUM drops 20% then their revenue will drop roughly 20%. The main difference is that they don't receive ongoing comissions from changing products because they only use 1 fund (or direct equity if you have £1M+)

Obviously everyone would like investment managers to only apply their fees if they show a profit but that is never going to happen.

And how much is this annual charge by the way?

Typically 1-1.5% and 0-1.5% Upfront, depending on size of investment.

jem16 wrote: »

Have you nothing to contribute in other areas?

No, as I have previously said. I only commented in this because I used to work for them and know their processes etc.

Not many people around who have more than £250k to invest and are happy being 100% in equities.

You'd be surprised - they have over 20,000 clients, albeit most of them in the US.

I'm not going to bother responding to Myrmidon because he has got personal and is way off the topic of the thread.

jem16

xyy123 wrote: »

No, as I have previously said. I only commented in this because I used to work for them and know their processes etc.

What did you do when you worked there?

Your advice to someone on another thread to put £60k into a FTSE100 tracker for a year was IMHO shocking.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=26500861#post26500861

xyy123

jem16 wrote: »

What did you do when you worked there?

Your advice to someone on another thread to put £60k into a FTSE100 tracker for a year was IMHO shocking.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=26500861#post26500861

Responded to you in relevant thread.

jamesd

andrit wrote: »

I am 66 years old and would appreciate any advice or hear of any experiences regarding Fisher Wealth Management. How reliable are they with pensioners funds?

database wrote: »

I am also 66 and needing input re Fisher's

Dizzy2220 wrote: »

we were considering putting our meagre savings with them. I pulled back as was not able to find anything out about them other than what they themselves publish. There seems to be no independant opinions. Other than the posts here. One wonders how safe the money would be.

Their usual practice doesn't seem to be ideal for pensioners who want relatively low up and down movements and income. Looks to be more suitable for those who are actively accumulating assets by making large ongoing investments.

Have a read of the iii columns. Not much, if anything, there about protecting assets but lots about buying throughout a bear market to make hay when they recover.

Since I'm accumulating assets that buying is pretty much what I was doing, though I did better on market timing for shifting capital into equities than that column seems to have done.

Christobel

I'm new to this site, not an employee of Fisher, but I've recently become a client. This is written for the people, like me, who want to know what to do with their money; Don't suppose it will be of interest to the 'professionals' amongst the bloggerati whose 'posts' I've much enjoyed reading!
Anyway, slightly to my surprise I found I'd accumulated quite a bit of money in PEPs, ISAs and various pension schemes - and knew I couldn't manage it. I've also discovered most advisers can't either; in part because each 'lump' is looked at separately and I wanted to talk to people who would look across all my investments irrespective of the 'type' (or 'wrapper' as I've learnt they are called). So, I contacted various people who profess to do just that included the Adviser who looked after some of my pensions, the stockbroker who I'd used for my self select PEPs, my bank and various others from recommendation or web searches.
I reduced this long list to a short list by reading and listening to the responses I got; and then whittled it down further by comparing what they did against my own personal prejudices - that, basically, its all about asset allocation (ie how much in equity, property, cash etc) and not very much about fund choice, and watch the charges!
This bowled out most people who seemed fixated with particular funds - and wanted charges totalling over 2%pa when everything was taken into consideration (I've another prejudice based on a certain amount of experience and research that the quoted annual charge on funds of around 1.5% is, in fact, over 2% because all sorts of other costs like dealing commission, audit etc get charged direct to the fund).
...then I did nothing for a year and watched to see if they did what they said they'd do - and then got bored and went with Fisher because they kept their promises (ie rang when they'd promised, showed various stats like % in UK being much less than almost everyone else - and I personally don't think UK is the place to invest for the longer term when I've already got property etc here).
Long winded way of saying they seem okay so far in relation to most others - time will tell.