Help me rebalance my failing S&S ISAs Portfolio - Sept 2011

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

You should go to bed. You've started to contradict yourself in the same paragraph.

Get some sleep and come back to entertain us after you've had a rest.

i think investment trusts are good for novices, then in time they should buy shares directly.

did you manage to find any more evidence to show consistency of fund returns?

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

i think investment trusts are good for novices, then in time they should buy shares directly.

did you manage to find any more evidence to show consistency of fund returns?

Yes. You.

Apart from the occasional tracker, investment trusts are actively managed investment vehicles.

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Yes. You.

Apart from the occasional tracker, investment trusts are actively managed investment vehicles.

good luck with the UT's, i've provided evidence that UTs are perhaps not the wisest investment. However some people are ever so slightly thick and seem unable to comprehend evidence.....

my second cousin works in the city of london, he got a 2 million pound bonus last year. just think some of your money might have went into his bonus.....

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

good luck with the UT's, i've provided evidence that UTs are perhaps not the wisest investment. However some people are ever so slightly thick and seem unable to comprehend evidence.....

my second cousin works in the city of london, he got a 2 million pound bonus last year. just think some of your money might have went into his bonus.....

You still haven't mastered the competent research that I suggested you ought to try then.

[edit]

Ah! The truth then: you're jealous of your second cousin...

darkpool

masonic wrote: »

Ok, I misunderstood what you meant by dealing costs. PTR is not something I've looked at before, though. Frankly, I'm a little confused by the figures I've seen: apparently HSBC FTSE All-share Index has a quoted PTR of 0% (surely it needs to change its constituents and weightings as the index changes?), M&G Recovery has a PTR of -7.42% (what on earth does a negative number mean?). I wanted to compare Aberdeen Emerging Markets (66%) with L&G Global EM Index, but the latter does not disclose its turnover - possibly due to the fact it is a relatively new launch. I'm left unsure of how managed and passive funds compare on underlying sharedealing costs.

with a tracker the dealing fees aren't too bad. the tracker doesn't have to sell/ buy shares too often, also they should get a good price from the stockbroker.

some active funds have a turnover of over 500%

it is hard to get turnover percentages, i believe under the new RDR funds will not have to disclose it.

if you want to get smarter about investing get a book, the investors chronicle is good as well. once you know a bit more read the "money" section of the financial times on a saturday.

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

You still haven't mastered the competent research that I suggested you ought to try then.

[edit]

Ah! The truth then: you're jealous of your second cousin...

ehhhmmmm ok

kar999

Two posts where we agree!!!

darkpool wrote: »

well you don't seem to be the type of person that lets evidence get in the way of decision making. tbh for you i think active management is the right choice.

Thank you. Yes it has worked for me personally and I am speaking in terms of financial gain. (I monitor absolute returns of various funds/trackers/ETF's in a virtual portfolio to check this is a fact and there are winners and losers across various sectors and fund types.)

darkpool wrote: »

if you want to get smarter about investing get a book, the investors chronicle is good as well. once you know a bit more read the "money" section of the financial times on a saturday.

Couldn't agree more.... I buy and read it every week. Have done for ages. It often has articles discussing fees etc. but it's usually jam packed with tips for active funds from experts and real investors, some of which I have followed up personally by investing my own money and made some excellant returns.

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhmmmm ok

Indeed. Try researching what investment trusts are for starters...;)

DavidLaGuardia

Golly, I've never see the passive v active argument reach almost sectarian levels.

Quite frankly there will always be some good managers, but trying to pick the ones who will remain at the top has proved in my own personal investments to be futile and almost random. If like me, you have a long run of "luck" it is hard to observe this at first.

The "average" in any sector is also misleading since it is an average of funds and not the markets on what they are based. The weight of non-investment-industy academic evidence on the passive side is quite frankly overwhelming compared to the pro-actives (that sounds like a spread )

The idea that some markets like the Far East are less perfect than the US/UK and warrant active involvement is enticing, until the cost of being active in these markets in put under the microscope. The trading spreads are much larger and sufficient to wipe out most of the advantage.

"Motivated by the possibility that funds may outperform over the short-run, before investors compete away their performance with inflows, we conduct further tests…Here, we find that the proportion of skilled funds equals 2.4%, implying that a small number of managers have ‘hot hands’ over short time periods.…(relative to pure luck).” False Discoveries in Mutual Fund Performance - Measuring Luck in Estimated Alphas (2008)
Authors: Laurent Barras Swiss Finance Institute - Imperial College London – Tanaka Business School O. Scaillet University of Geneva – HEC Swiss Finance Institute Russ R. Wermers University of Maryland- Robert H. Smith School of Business.

Ark_Welder

Sometimes, the index being tracked is of no relevance except to those that fear they are losing out on something.

If professional active managers are unable to beat an index, why should we believe that any amateur investors having their own direct holdings can either?