beware artemis strategic assets

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

Not unusual. Remember they are paid to do that by Artemis (or other fund houses whose funds they are promoting).

Is that one not on your list Dunstonh?

dunstonh

StevieJ wrote: »

Is that one not on your list Dunstonh?

No. It was a new launch with no real data available. The manager had a good reputation but thats all it had. It certainly didnt warrent going on any [STRIKE]marketing[/STRIKE] wealth list. Just looking at the latest stats, its running 100th out of 127 over 3 months and mid table over 6 months. Its better YTD or over 1 year but thats because it had a short term out performance at the start of the year. If you take that little period out, the rest of the time its underperformed.

I have one client with it and he chose to have it as a dabble for part of his portfolio which is ringfenced. The part I control has done better However, the problem with a fund like this is that its not really ideal for an inexperienced typically cautious to medium risk investor as it can alter its asset mix a lot and move up and down the risk profile. For a more experienced investor using a servicing IFA then it doesnt really fit in the portfolio as it is effectively a portfolio fund. I can see where those that DIY may fancy it.

Why not? I thought they were Financial Advisors but you have to pay more for that bit.

I the case of the platform they are a product provider, not IFAs. Its no different to say Aviva writing to you to say their XXXX fund is super and wonderful and you should have it. Many criticise this as where do you draw the line between advice and information. Many view the marketing 150 list as an advice list. However, it is not. I think the HL model is great but I do think they push the limits of what is acceptable for marketing/no advice at times.

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

No. It was a new launch with no real data available. The manager had a good reputation but thats all it had. It certainly didnt warrent going on any [STRIKE]marketing[/STRIKE] wealth list. Just looking at the latest stats, its running 100th out of 127 over 3 months and mid table over 6 months. Its better YTD or over 1 year but thats because it had a short term out performance at the start of the year. If you take that little period out, the rest of the time its underperformed.

I have one client with it and he chose to have it as a dabble for part of his portfolio which is ringfenced. The part I control has done better However, the problem with a fund like this is that its not really ideal for an inexperienced typically cautious to medium risk investor as it can alter its asset mix a lot and move up and down the risk profile. For a more experienced investor using a servicing IFA then it doesnt really fit in the portfolio as it is effectively a portfolio fund. I can see where those that DIY may fancy it.



I the case of the platform they are a product provider, not IFAs. Its no different to say Aviva writing to you to say their XXXX fund is super and wonderful and you should have it.

It is not really fair to take out the out performance I believe it was rated 5th out of 125 over 1 year and 37 out of 122 since launch. I believe the poor short term performance is a result of a large short on govt gilts that has yet to bear fruit.

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

I the case of the platform they are a product provider, not IFAs. Its no different to say Aviva writing to you to say their XXXX fund is super and wonderful and you should have it. Many criticise this as where do you draw the line between advice and information. Many view the marketing 150 list as an advice list. However, it is not. I think the HL model is great but I do think they push the limits of what is acceptable for marketing/no advice at times.

My point was they have advisors who are qualified to give financial advice.

http://www.h-l.co.uk/advice/independent-financial-advice

StevieJ

I must say I do get a little fed up with H&L pushing funds and destroying the rain forests with all the crap they send out.

dunstonh

It is not really fair to take out the out performance I believe it was rated 5th out of 125 over 1 year and 37 out of 122 since launch. I believe the poor short term performance is a result of a large short on govt gilts that has yet to bear fruit.

My point on that one was more that it was a very short period that it outperformed against the much longer period it has underperformed (in terms of months the fund has been available!). If those figures were over a longer period, it would be like a fund having 4 bad years and one good one and that one good one is masking the bad years.

My point was they have advisors who are qualified to give financial advice.

you know that but how often do we see people not realise that the wealth 150 is a marketing list and not an advice list. I personally don't believe that IFAs should be product providers. You cease to be independent if you have your own product to sell.

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

you know that but how often do we see people not realise that the wealth 150 is a marketing list and not an advice list. I personally don't believe that IFAs should be product providers. You cease to be independent if you have your own product to sell.

If you ever needed a fund to prove that this is it, went straight into the 150 and is still there, underperforming on almost any timeframe. To be fair income funds have not been the greatest investments recently (apart from THE man) but still

http://www.h-l.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/p/psigma-income-accumulation/charts

http://www.psigma.com/__files/1.10091317320820.PSigma%20Income%20Fund%20Factsheet%20September%202010.pdf

Jonbvn

This fund was being ramped by some posters on here when it first came out. IIRC, I did post that it was too easly to draw any conclusions. Several posters didn't seem to agree with me. VI perhaps???

The aim of this fund seems to be to trade on the reputation of the manager. Similar to Bolton and his Chinese IT.

bendix

I'm in it. Have been for a year or so. It only comprises around 6% of my invested assets, and I'm very comfortable with its performance. Not a dog. Not spectacular, but pretty consistent.

At the end of the day I don't really give a damn about individual funds - one Emerging Markets fund is going to perform pretty similarly to another Emerging market fund.

To make the assertion the OP has that the fund should be avoided because another fund run by Artemis has lost some money is, frankly, the assertion of an ill-informed twit.

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

If you ever needed a fund to prove that this is it, went straight into the 150 and is still there, underperforming on almost any timeframe. To be fair income funds have not been the greatest investments recently (apart from THE man) but still

http://www.h-l.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/p/psigma-income-accumulation/charts

http://www.psigma.com/__files/1.10091317320820.PSigma%20Income%20Fund%20Factsheet%20September%202010.pdf

PSig manager was busy buying banks in Autumn 2008 when everyone was dumping them at a grand rate of knots !!
His fund was down over 40% in first few months - great reccy HL

(Oh yes, and while we're at it, what about the massively overhyped Jupiter Abs Return)