choosing Funds

jamesd

See the Aberdeen Emerging Markets page. Look in the upper right corner at the Key rations & analysis section. That has various calculated risk and performance factors. Click on the name of the measure for a description of what they mean.

Linton

meridian wrote: »

For those of you who do your own fund investments can you advise me the best advice/performance sites as there are several and the terminology is quite confusing in fact the whole area of investing is confusing, most of the press says only 40% of fund managers get it right so no wonder I'm struggling. When looking at a performance chart is it the 10 yr annualised number which one notes, does this mean the % you would have earned in total if you had invested for 10 yrs. Thanks.

I get most of my info from trustnet.com. morningstar.co.uk is also helpful.

In general though, I would concentrate on choosing the sector before you choose the fund. The difference in performance and risk between sectors is in general much larger than that between funds in one sector. Having chosen a sector it is then much easier to chose a fund.

To answer your last question - normally the % figure given for 1,3, and 5 years is the overall change. 10 year figures dont seem to be readily available - many funds havent been going for 10 years. The long term performance figures can be quite misleading as they are often highly influenced by specific years. For example most funds are now showing much improved 5 year figures because of the very large gains in the past year.

But you often see, in addition, figures for each year. These perhaps are more enlightening as you will find some apparently similar funds in fact do very much worse in bad years and much better in good years.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

There isnt much of an argument in the US because the system favours trackers. However, we dont have the same handicaps in the UK.

We have the handicap that managed funds in rip off Britain often charge twice as much as in the US and so make trackers in the UK even more competitive.

IFAs, and those who work for IFAs like Aegis, have the handicap that trackers generally pay IFAs little or no commission.

Aegis

Rollinghome wrote: »

We have the handicap that managed funds in rip off Britain often charge twice as much as in the US and so make trackers in the UK even more competitive.

IFAs, and those who work for IFAs like Aegis, have the handicap that trackers generally pay IFAs little or no commission.

No handicap at all to me or my company. As I've stated several times in the past, I work for a fee-only adviser. We do not keep any commission from any providers. We still don't use trackers.

You should really stop trying implying that the commission level in any way influences the decisions my company makes about what funds to recommend. It's simply not true at all.

dunstonh

IFAs, and those who work for IFAs like Aegis, have the handicap that trackers generally pay IFAs little or no commission.

No handicap here either. Like Aegis, fee basis here means it doesnt matter if its tracker or managed.

You should really stop trying implying that the commission level in any way influences the decisions my company makes about what funds to recommend. It's simply not true at all.

You wont change him. Despite being banned by the board a number of times for making false accusations and being abusive at times, he still churns out that rubbish. He doesnt debate issues. Just slags off IFAs by taking the opposite view.