Hargreaves Lansdown marketing just a load of rubbish?

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

I did hear HL were planning to improve share dealing prices to be more competitive. That could be big business given their total amount of overall clients.

Just hope they don't push certain shares too hard!

you still haven't answered my question ? is there a reason for avoiding ?

almondsalty

Blinko what question would that be? Would love to have a go at answering if I knew what the Q was?

jamesd

blinko, the platform paper as part of the FSA's Retail Distribution review may make it necessary for HL to change their pricing model. The effects could also be increased competition. At least one major platform vendor has a new version in development waiting for release after the platform paper is produced. Currently expected before August but could slip to later in the third quarter of the year.

Anything that could reduce HL's current margin that's almost three times that of the cheaper platforms could harm the business. I think that HL will continue to do well but it is a potential challenge for them.

It looks like a fairly decent time to consider shorting HL's shares. Might not make money but it'd be useful protection for anyone holding them and a possible way to make some money.

Vortigern

almondsalty wrote: »

Blinko what question would that be? Would love to have a go at answering if I knew what the Q was?

You can't possibly have missed it. He's asked the same question at least 4 times earlier in this thread.

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

Blinko what question would that be? Would love to have a go at answering if I knew what the Q was?

you have come on here and have 32 post.

You have come on here and all you have done is bash HL.

When I challenged your posts and put questions forward all you have done is avoid them.

Why do I need to ask for the 5th time ? I think the reason is your arguments are weak and when challenged they fall down !

almondsalty

Blinko. No need for 'arguments'. You are very passionate in your posts about HL, are you affiliated with them anyway?

Now onto your 'question' which you have asked others too I believe. I have read the HL website and it says funds are added via a combination of 'rigorous selections' and 'mathematical models'. That is their 'marketing' answer, but in my opinion it is not true.

Using the latest example of the Malborough multi cap, this fund appears to have been added on the basis of past performance of the manager. HL doesn't communicate the findings of their 'rigorous selection process' or mathematical modelling to investors, but what they do paint is a very nice picture of the past performance of the fund manager. As well as saying things like it will 'dovetail' nicely with other funds. We are always told that past performance shouldn't be treated as a guide to the future.

Its rivals don't rate the fund as it has no track record and the likes of Justin at Candid Money are cautious on it http://candidmoney.com/questions/question505.aspx but HL presents it as the best thing since sliced bread? Mostly supported by weak opinions of theirs.

This just offers the most recent example. So in answer to your burning 'question', in my opinion funds appear to be added to W150 via some very strange ways:

* Past performance of fund managers (which really shouldn't be done)
* Secret Commissions/Targets as Daily Mail pointed out (certain funds appear to get banners, promotion on Independent etc, and certainly a VIP treatment. This isn't being done for fun is it?)

Funds are also selected across sectors to give 'choice' to people'. So this allows them to narrow down the funds in each category, in line with some of the above.

Now it would be great to see some of this 'complex mathematical work' and 'rigorous selection' techniques when promoting the funds wouldn't it? But instead what we get communicated is something with a lot of style (pushy style) and little substance.

:money:

No one is questioning their service or their efficiency, this is far better than many others!

Ark_Welder

I use HL for funds. Some of the funds that I hold happen to be in their W150 list - but this is coincidence. I prefer to make my own decisions regarding my investments, so - for me - the W150 is irrelevant. However, for those that do not want to do too much research then the W150 can be used as a starting point. But I would ask, how do you then decide which fund(s) to choose from a particular sector? i.e. if there are ten european funds, which one to pick? Answer: you either have to research them or stick a pin in one.

For me, the main problem with the W150 is that it is too big in its offering

Nanpy

almondsalty wrote: »

* Past performance of fund managers (which really shouldn't be done)

Why not? Why invest in a managed fund if your no1 point of research isn't going to be past performance of the management team? I thought it was unusual, perverse even, that the original article you linked to made this point. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance for a fund, but it's a fairly good way to judge a manager, and preferably over as wide a timescale as possible. ie if a fund lost 50% of its value when everyone else lost 75% it's a sign of good management.

However, I don't personally pay much attention to HL's marketing - well I try not to but they do tend to bombard me at home and work - and buying a fund at launch seems quite risky. I'm actually keeping an eye on Hargreaves new Marlborough fund to see how it performs over the next few months.

Anyway, you aren't looking to be convinced so I'll leave it at that.

almondsalty

I hear your point about the past performance of the fund manager, but with the Malborough multi cap it is the sole focus of persuasive communications to clients. Calling him an 'exceptional stockpicker', saying it is a 'truly exceptional prospect' without much in the way of other research to support such aggressive promotion of the fund specifically is concerning.

BestInvest and Candidmoney have both expressed caution on the manager himself in relation to this fund as Hargreave doesn't have strong experience of running income funds specifically (although he has a good track record of smaller companies) .

Point is focusing so much on the past performance of a manger is dangerous. Anthony Bolton's china special situations is a very short term and recent example of why. Bolton may well turn things around in the long-term but his product is currently experiencing a lot of issues, some of which his experience didn't foresee/negate successfully.

Metaphorically speaking, look at the dangers of appointing football managers based on past performance specifically. Phil Scolari won the world cup with Brazil, but was shockingly poor at Chelsea. Avram Grant helped Chelsea get to the Champions League final but got West Ham relegated. It is vastly important that context is also considered, particularly with investments.

It's an interesting debate .

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

Blinko. No need for 'arguments'. You are very passionate in your posts about HL, are you affiliated with them anyway?

Now onto your 'question' which you have asked others too I believe. I have read the HL website and it says funds are added via a combination of 'rigorous selections' and 'mathematical models'. That is their 'marketing' answer, but in my opinion it is not true.

Using the latest example of the Malborough multi cap, this fund appears to have been added on the basis of past performance of the manager. HL doesn't communicate the findings of their 'rigorous selection process' or mathematical modelling to investors, but what they do paint is a very nice picture of the past performance of the fund manager. As well as saying things like it will 'dovetail' nicely with other funds. We are always told that past performance shouldn't be treated as a guide to the future.

Its rivals don't rate the fund as it has no track record and the likes of Justin at Candid Money are cautious on it http://candidmoney.com/questions/question505.aspx but HL presents it as the best thing since sliced bread? Mostly supported by weak opinions of theirs.

This just offers the most recent example. So in answer to your burning 'question', in my opinion funds appear to be added to W150 via some very strange ways:

* Past performance of fund managers (which really shouldn't be done)
* Secret Commissions/Targets as Daily Mail pointed out (certain funds appear to get banners, promotion on Independent etc, and certainly a VIP treatment. This isn't being done for fun is it?)

Funds are also selected across sectors to give 'choice' to people'. So this allows them to narrow down the funds in each category, in line with some of the above.

Now it would be great to see some of this 'complex mathematical work' and 'rigorous selection' techniques when promoting the funds wouldn't it? But instead what we get communicated is something with a lot of style (pushy style) and little substance.

:money:

No one is questioning their service or their efficiency, this is far better than many others!

This wasn't my question ! What I asked was how do you think in your mind, they came up with the wealth 150 ?