Hargreaves Lansdown marketing just a load of rubbish?

dunstonh

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.

If you are going to stick a pin in one then you may as well go with the index tracker. That would be the more sensible option as the minute you start using managed funds then you need to be researching them as you are deviating away from the benchmark for risk and volatility as well as investment objectives.

It would be daft to have say 10 European equity funds with similar objectives in your list. However, a new europe or special sits, or equity income variants for example would make sense as they have differences that you look for in a managed fund.

almondsalty

Blinko Read my response via the bullet points. Oh and also via a 'rigorous selection process' and 'complex mathematical models' as they state .

Now how do you think they come up with the Wealth 150? You clearly are very passionate about the subject, something tells me you may well be affiliated with them.

So please feel free to reveal the magic Wealth 150 formula...

blinko

dunstonh wrote: »

If you are going to stick a pin in one then you may as well go with the index tracker. That would be the more sensible option as the minute you start using managed funds then you need to be researching them as you are deviating away from the benchmark for risk and volatility as well as investment objectives.

It would be daft to have say 10 European equity funds with similar objectives in your list. However, a new europe or special sits, or equity income variants for example would make sense as they have differences that you look for in a managed fund.

agreed I would only really go with an ETF anyway, more liquid, tighter spread and the performance will usually be in line with with fund

but sticking pins is like gambling

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

Blinko Read my response via the bullet points. Oh and also via a 'rigorous selection process' and 'complex mathematical models' as they state .

Now how do you think they come up with the Wealth 150? You clearly are very passionate about the subject, something tells me you may well be affiliated with them.

So please feel free to reveal the magic Wealth 150 formula...

Ok so let me get this straight in your mind when you first saw the wealth 150 and you thought I wonder how the funds got in there.

The first thought that came to your mind was they must be using "Oh and also via a 'rigorous selection process' and 'complex mathematical models' " ?

almondsalty

Dear Blinko. You fail to pick up on sarcasm and quotation marks . There are many possible ways to make such lists through both qualitative and quantitative research. Each research element may look for different things depending on the objectives of the list that is being prepared.

Asking me to state how HL pick their funds when there is no real objective of their selection defined is near impossible. But what isn't impossible to understand that there is some strange things going on with the compilation of the list as explained.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are most likely affiliated with HL, so please go and tell the team to take a leaf out of fidelity's book and be clear as to how they select funds:

Fidelity Select List: https://www.fidelity.co.uk/investor/research-funds/select-list/selection-team.page? "We look across 13 major sectors to ensure coverage of all types of funds and seek to identify those managers with demonstrated consistent performance. We favour funds with strong risk adjusted outperformance, and consistent returns over time. The funds on the Select List will be monitored and formally reviewed every quarter. In the event of any changes to a fund or manager that we believe could impact future performance, the fund will be put up for review."

HL Wealth 150: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/wealth-150 "For a fund to be included in the Wealth 150 it must go through a rigorous selection process. Our 10 strong research team use complex mathematical models and meet hundreds of fund managers a year. All funds within the Wealth 150 are continually monitored."

Fidelity clearly states why it may favour certain funds over others, while HL doesn't scratch the surface. It just provides a lot of dodgy car salesman marketing speak. The above are just partial extracts, feel free to dig a little deeper.

This is why I have told you on numerous occasions, they are the one best placed to answer how they select the funds on the list. This question would not have to be asked, if they make it clear in the first place just like Fidelity.

:money:

If you could use your connections at HL, perhaps you can gain a more detailed response from them or your superiors?

blinko

almondsalty wrote: »

Dear Blinko. You fail to pick up on sarcasm and quotation marks . There are many possible ways to make such lists through both qualitative and quantitative research. Each research element may look for different things depending on the objectives of the list that is being prepared.

Asking me to state how HL pick their funds when there is no real objective of their selection defined is near impossible. But what isn't impossible to understand that there is some strange things going on with the compilation of the list as explained.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are most likely affiliated with HL, so please go and tell the team to take a leaf out of fidelity's book and be clear as to how they select funds:

Fidelity Select List: https://www.fidelity.co.uk/investor/research-funds/select-list/selection-team.page? "We look across 13 major sectors to ensure coverage of all types of funds and seek to identify those managers with demonstrated consistent performance. We favour funds with strong risk adjusted outperformance, and consistent returns over time. The funds on the Select List will be monitored and formally reviewed every quarter. In the event of any changes to a fund or manager that we believe could impact future performance, the fund will be put up for review."

HL Wealth 150: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/wealth-150 "For a fund to be included in the Wealth 150 it must go through a rigorous selection process. Our 10 strong research team use complex mathematical models and meet hundreds of fund managers a year. All funds within the Wealth 150 are continually monitored."

Fidelity clearly states why it may favour certain funds over others, while HL doesn't scratch the surface. It just provides a lot of dodgy car salesman marketing speak. The above are just partial extracts, feel free to dig a little deeper.

This is why I have told you on numerous occasions, they are the one best placed to answer how they select the funds on the list. This question would not have to be asked, if they make it clear in the first place just like Fidelity.

:money:

If you could use your connections at HL, perhaps you can gain a more detailed response from them or your superiors?

Your wasting everybodies time here with your made up usernames to try and bash HL.

I had to ask you 5 times to answer a basic question, which anyone with a solid argument woudl be happy to answer.

when you did answer you have come up with a load of rubbish that you believed when you first saw the wealth 150 that you thought it was complex maths models behind the selection.

Please go away and bash HL somewhere else !!!

almondsalty

blinko wrote: »

Your wasting everybodies time here with your made up usernames to try and bash HL.

I had to ask you 5 times to answer a basic question, which anyone with a solid argument woudl be happy to answer.

when you did answer you have come up with a load of rubbish that you believed when you first saw the wealth 150 that you thought it was complex maths models behind the selection.

Please go away and bash HL somewhere else !!!

LOL. I have provided my argument, you personally can't be bothered to read it all and just stick to your strange agenda.

It is clear that I do not believe in the spin of HL's wealth 150, hence why i said 'oh and' with their words in quotations and a smily face at the end. How many indicators of sarcasm do you require? You are trying your best to defend them, yet have just admitted yourself that how HL select the funds is rubbish. Talk about contradictions.

Strangely enough you haven't ruled out yourself being affiliated with HL. If you are, you're doing a very poor job of defending them as part of your duties. :money:

Judging by your previous posts you are a very strong advocate of HL /affiliated with them (?), and infact one of your earlier posts from around six years ago begged for people to refer you to HL and spammed the URL and everyone around you questioned why:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/31658

Naughty naughty.

Anyway best to remain on topic, which was what people thought of HL's marketing and how/if they use it.

jamesd

blinko wrote: »

agreed I would only really go with an ETF anyway, more liquid, tighter spread and the performance will usually be in line with with fund

Also a lot more expensive, often in both the dealing costs you have to pay and the management costs. That'll inevitably reduce performance of a tracker.

Even if you can get an ETF that's cheaper on holding cost the fund is likely to win on lower cost for ongoing contributions.

I'm assuming you wouldn't waste your time looking at tracker funds charging 1.5%, 1% or similar but would look at those in the 0.1% to 0.4% sort of range. I don't personally have any great issue with paying 0.1% TER for a FTSE All Share Index tracker in one of my pension pots. Doubt I could beat that cost with an ETF.

There's also the counterparty risk of many ETFs, something you just don't get with tracker funds.

Ark_Welder

Sticking pins was not a suggestion for how to select a fund, it was an a metaphor for how failing to research a fund might as well be - whether from all those available in a sector, or just from a list of ten suggestions. If the 'ten suggestions' do have dissimilar objectives then that is all to the good. Adequate research will identify these differences. Inadequate research and the metaphor applies. This applies to ETFs too.

jamesd

almondsalty, HL's marketing publications are superb, much as their customer service is exemplary. Superb doesn't mean offering good recommendations, it means doing the job the marketing is intended to do, sell things.