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

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

no ones disputing that the tax system in america is different. in the UK we have stamp duty on shares, in america they don't....

most things in america are cheaper than the UK. i'd be surprised if american fund managers paid more in tax than UK fund managers. So if american fund managers don't add value it's likely uk fund managers don't add value either....

Already answered for you in numerous other posts in numerous other threads.

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Already answered for you in numerous other posts.

ok, i didn't think you'd have the information

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

i just don't understand how someone can look at these figures and decide managed funds are better than trackers.

To know the answer, you need to understand what is being tracked:

MrMalkin wrote: »

Bonds:
12.5% Scottish Widows Overseas Fixed Interest Tracker
12.5% Royal London Gilt Trust

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

ok, i didn't think you'd have the information

No point. You'd still bring up the same old lines that you've made throughout your posts in previous threads.

Except that I don't recall you recommending in threads before this one that people should consider actively managed funds...

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Except that I don't recall you recommending in threads before this on that people should consider actively managed funds...

ehhhmmmm ok, i read this a few times and don't understand what you mean.

Linton

darkpool wrote: »

"Fidelity South East Asia and First State Asia Pacific" the ones you compared against the FTSE100.

That was to counter those enthusiasts who seem to claim that a tracker is inherently more lucrative than a managed fund irrespective of what the fund invests in (ie sector).

Those particular funds have performed far better than the FTSE100, not because of random chance (the Fidelity fund is not that high up in its sector) but because they invest in SE Asian companies.

Anyone who had thought about it 10 years ago could reasonably have predicted that SE Asia companies are likely to do better than the companies that comprise the FTSE100.

Those people who believe that managed funds are some finance industry scam would not have invested in SE Asia as there were no SE Asia trackers. They would have lost out.

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhmmmm ok, i read this a few times and don't understand what you mean.

Exactly...

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Exactly...

i'm on this thread because i find it interesting to debate AM/ passives. why are you on it?

perhaps if you don't have anything to add you should just read the thread and try and learn something?

you should stick with your Unit Trusts.

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

i'm on this thread because i find it interesting to debate AM/ passives. why are you on it?

Then start a thread for discussing active vs passive and leave this for Jabba to discuss what is relevant to him.

darkpool wrote: »

perhaps if you don't have anything to add you should just read the thread and try and learn something?

you should stick with your Unit Trusts.

Try applying it to yourself!

The only thing that you are capable of teaching others is patience and tolerance

MrMalkin

Ark_Welder wrote: »

To know the answer, you need to understand what is being tracked:

Bonds:
12.5% Scottish Widows Overseas Fixed Interest Tracker
12.5% Royal London Gilt Trust

I don't understand, you think managed bond funds are better than passive bond funds? Or you think the bonds being tracked are not very good?

If it's the latter, they're not there to earn high returns, they're there to reduce volatility as part of my asset allocation strategy. To put it simply, I rely on the lower volatility of bonds and cash to meet some of the goals of capital preservation that you (it was you I think?) mentioned earlier.