Which funds do you invest in?

Rollinghome

talexuser wrote: »

as I said before look at the graphs for 1 and 3 years (on HL).

Here are the graphs from iii

Ahh, that trace shows the FTSE rebased, not the total return from the FTSE. You are leaving out all the FTSE dividends but including them for the fund.

I'm not sure why you are now referring to iii when you said you saw the graph on H-L where it does include total returns. The actual figures from HL are as posted above.

talexuser

I see, so which is the lowest cost all share tracker to compare it with (presumably that has dividends included?) By the way the graph on HL (if you bring it up) shows the same as the grphs on iii.

Rollinghome

talexuser wrote: »

since you don't seem ableto bring up the graphs on HL I put a different source direct links in my post above.

I did bring up the graphs on H-L. That's where those figures are from. At the foot of the page where the graphs are shown they give the actual figures. Both discrete and cumulative figures. Didn't you notice them?

The figures show exactly the same as the graphs which is why I wondered what you were looking at.

talexuser

I put the all share on the graph too, which showed the IP ahead ~5% in 3 years and ~2% in 1 year. If the all share dividends are not included in the graph that explains the difference. So which is the lowest cost all share tracker? I know it's not the same sector, so not strictly comparable, but I'm just interested generally in whether a fund justifies its management charges over time and that would seem a reasonable comparison for that purpose?

Rollinghome

talexuser wrote: »

I see, so which is the lowest cost all share tracker to compare it with (presumably that has dividends included?) By the way the graph on HL (if you bring it up) shows the same as the grphs on iii.

Take your pick. But you also need to know which class of share you are comparing as the fees will be different which will effect the return. The iii graph doesn't say what class it refers to, whether retail or institutional.

For the best trackers the return should be about 0.28% or so below the index it tracks. I'd point out though that the graph posted by James was referring specifically to the FTSE All Share rather than a tracker and I think the simplest way, if you want to know what you saw, would be for you post the figures given under the H-L graph you say you saw. Otherwise let's just forget it shall we?

Rollinghome

talexuser wrote: »

So which is the lowest cost all share tracker?

Depends which costs you include. An ETF might have the lowest fees but you'd have dealing costs and spread. Because most tracker funds don't pay trail H-L adds an additional 0.5% on many of the tracker funds they offer. For most people the cheapest is likely to be HSBC trackers through H-L. Most of those are 0.28% TER with no additional fee from H-L. Fidelity has lower fees but the returns are lower.

talexuser

we just posted at the same time, see above. I put the iii links in because you can't link direct to the same HL graphs.

talexuser

I see, thanks. I might use that for comparisons to the income sector, where a lot of funds seem to be closet trackers with high fees, just for a feel of whether they are justifying their charges as above.

Rollinghome

talexuser wrote: »

I see, thanks. I might use that for comparisons to the income sector, where a lot of funds seem to be closet trackers with high fees, just for a feel of whether they are justifying their charges as above.

It's a tricky one and depends on the market. Typically about two thirds of managed FTSE funds underperfom FTSE trackers which will consistently sit in the top half. The question is whether you can consistently predict which managed funds will outperform in future years. Funds that were at the top for a while such as IP and Jupiter Income but then fall to the bottom show how difficult that is.

It's complicated further because all the worst funds are "disapeared" from the stats completely or merged such as all the New Star funds that once were favorites. Like doctors, fund managers bury their failures.

Most fund management companies have several different funds within each sector so that they'll always have one they can market as outperforming and let the underperformers stay in the background. They can't be sure which of thier funds or strategies will be the winner so even harder for mere mortals. You pays your money...

Andre123_2

Hi,

A good place to start when choosing one fund over another is to look at how they are rated by the fund rating agencies. Firstly it might be worth explaining how these agencies typically rate. Each agency will typically rate on either a quantitative or qualitative basis.

1. Quantitative
   This is based on cold hard figures, generally a rating based on how well a fund has performed against other funds in the same sector over a given period, this is how Morning Star and Trustnet rate.
2. Qualitative
   This rating system is seen to be a more forward thinking basis, looking at the quality of the fund management team, and how they make their investment decisions. Often members of the fund rating team will interview the fund managers to help gather information on the team, this is how Old Broad Street Research (O.B.S.R.) rate.

These are not they only ways of rating funds, but can be a good place to start, if you select funds that are well rated on a quantitative and a qualitative basis you will be picking funds that have preformed well in the past and have been assessed as having a strong management team to achieve future growth. That is the idea anyway!

You can find both O.B.S.R. (qualitative) and Trustnet (quantitative) ratings on the Trustnet website.

Hope this is helpful


Note:
The above information does not constitute financial advice, it is meant for information only. Should the reader require financial advice they should contact an independent financial advisor.