Funds fees query

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

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?

just guessing how much perp make.

5000 staff and not one of them has time to gather evidence to prove that active management is better than trackers?

500 funds? is that so the chance are they can always have a fund in the top 10%?

dunstonh

yes, some funds beat the market. but overall most don't.

Repeat: Tracker funds dont beat the market either.

Repeat: How is it that tracker funds are typically mid table if they beat most of the rest?

5000 staff and not one of them has time to gather evidence to prove that active management is better than trackers?

They don't need to. Most of their best funds are in areas where there are no trackers.

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

just guessing how much perp make.

5000 staff and not one of them has time to gather evidence to prove that active management is better than trackers?

500 funds? is that so the chance are they can always have a fund in the top 10%?

You may want to put "wild" in front of that, it's nowhere even near correct.

What on earth are you on about 5000 staff and evidence? Why on earth would HR and IT staff care about managed or trackers and which ones better? Nothing to do with what I said.

500 funds? Eh? Seriously dude, what are you on about?

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

Repeat: How is it that tracker funds are typically mid table if they beat most of the rest?

ehhmmmm because managed funds have a wider performance distribution. but overall (ie average) returns are lower than trackers.

is that not type of obvious?

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

You may want to put "wild" in front of that, it's nowhere even near correct.

What on earth are you on about 5000 staff and evidence? Why on earth would HR and IT staff care about managed or trackers and which ones better? Nothing to do with what I said.

500 funds? Eh? Seriously dude, what are you on about?

ok dude, what do perp spend their £169million of fees on?

HR and IT wont care. But would marketing not love to be able to prove the funds they are selling beat the market? Is that not obvious?

the reason that your employer has so many funds is that one is bound to be doing well at any particular time. that will be the one they will advertise.

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

ok dude, what do perp spend their £169million of fees on?

HR and IT wont care. But would marketing not love to be able to prove the funds they are selling beat the market? Is that not obvious?

the reason that your employer has so many funds is that one is bound to be doing well at any particular time. that will be the one they will advertise.

Well actually I don't know, that is why I asked you in the previous post to find some accurate figures instead of plucking them out of the air.

And your reasoning of why they have many funds is wrong. They have many funds because they are all in different areas; they have UK equity, they have Europe equity, emerging market etc. which are based on different risk profiles. If they only did one type of fund it would be rubbish, they'd be stuck in a very small market which limits growth = bad business sense!

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

ehhmmmm because managed funds have a wider performance distribution. but overall (ie average) returns are lower than trackers.

is that not type of obvious?

Do you mean wider performance below trackers?

A wider performance distribution wouldn't make trackers better if trackers are mid table as the wider gains would cancel off the wider losses.

darkpool

so how come in the 1960s and 1970s active funds generally charged 0.375% a year? it's now generally 1.5%.

investors now are being fleeced?

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

Do you mean wider performance below trackers?

A wider performance distribution wouldn't make trackers better if trackers are mid table as the wider gains would cancel off the wider losses.

you ever study maths outside primary school?

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

so how come in the 1960s and 1970s active funds generally charged 0.375% a year? it's now generally 1.5%.

investors now are being fleeced?

To pay for my bonuses.