We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Funds fees query
Comments
-
I'm afraid not true for the total returns of the various income acc funds I've had for 16 years since the days of peps compared to the index over that time.
sorry but the point i'm making is that overall active management underperforms the index. i don't think anyone has claimed that all active funds underperform the index.0 -
but due to the extra fees managed funds underperform trackers
i just don't like the active fund industry implying they outperform the market when they don't.
Such a sweeping statement is utter rubbish and totally untrue with regard to the OP's fund (and many others).
Fund and sector performance figures are shown in sterling on a mid-to-mid basis, inclusive of net reinvested income and net of the annual management charge all other fund expenses.
EDIT: 18 Month graph which is more applicable to the OP's timescale.
If the ball had gone in the net it would have been a goal.If my Auntie had been a man she'd have been my Uncle.0 -
Such a sweeping statement is utter rubbish and totally untrue with regard to the OP's fund (and many others).
Fund and sector performance figures are shown in sterling on a mid-to-mid basis, inclusive of net reinvested income and net of the annual management charge all other fund expenses
with the greatest respect i think this argument seems to be above your head. to use one fund as proof that active management is worth the high fees is ridiculous.0 -
with the greatest respect i think this argument seems to be above your head. to use one fund as proof that active management is worth the high fees is ridiculous.
With the greatest respect can I suggest you read the first opening post to see that this is EXACTLY what this thread is all about.
Thank you.If the ball had gone in the net it would have been a goal.If my Auntie had been a man she'd have been my Uncle.0 -
reading the more recent posts do you not think the debate has moved on?
Only moving in ever decreasing circles it seems!
sorry but the point i'm making is that overall active management underperforms the index. i don't think anyone has claimed that all active funds underperform the index.
I thought you had .....
but due to the extra fees managed funds underperform trackers
Answering the OP's original question with real appropriate evidence seemed appropriate (and not above my head as you presumptuously suggest.)If the ball had gone in the net it would have been a goal.If my Auntie had been a man she'd have been my Uncle.0 -
ok, to answer the OP. 1.69% on 10 billion is 169million pounds a year.
say they employ 100 staff at 100k a year each = 10million
office costs = 10million
research = 10 million
cost of posting report each year = 5 million
kickback to IFAs = 50 million (they all have mercs to keep, god bless 'em)
likely costs of running the fund seem low to what they charge........
in all honesty being an IFA must be like taking candy from the gullible.0 -
The Invesco Perpetual High Income fund must be really outperforming the tracker by leaps and bounds on a gross basis if they have all those costs and can still beat the FTSE100 passive fund net of charges!! :T
I'm glad I've had a shed load personally invested in that fund for the last 20 years!If the ball had gone in the net it would have been a goal.If my Auntie had been a man she'd have been my Uncle.0 -
ok, to answer the OP. 1.69% on 10 billion is 169million pounds a year.
say they employ 100 staff at 100k a year each = 10million
office costs = 10million
research = 10 million
cost of posting report each year = 5 million
kickback to IFAs = 50 million (they all have mercs to keep, god bless 'em)
likely costs of running the fund seem low to what they charge........
in all honesty being an IFA must be like taking candy from the gullible.
Oh so you work for a fund management company do you? So these figures are correct?
Brilliant, just brilliant!
The asset management company I (will) work for has around 5,000 staff, and that's just the UK - edit - and they have less than 500 funds... so your 100 staff per fund is inaccurate
I also doubt it costs £5 million to post a report.
Maybe come back with some ACTUAL figures?0 -
The Invesco Perpetual High Income fund must be really outperforming the tracker by leaps and bounds on a gross basis if they have all those costs and can still beat the FTSE100 passive fund net of charges!! :T
I'm glad I've had a shed load personally invested in that fund for the last 20 years!
people also win money betting on horses. does that make betting a good investment?
yes, some funds beat the market. but overall most don't.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards