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

Ark_Welder

BLB53 wrote: »

Of course, the cheapest option is to buy the individual shares (or low cost ITs) and hold. No costs at all after the initial purchase!

ITs have ongoing charges, and there might be an ongoing cost holding individual shares depending upon how and where they are held.

Rollinghome

Ark_Welder wrote: »

It would also help if there was an acceptance that different investors might use different methods to achieve their aims, that they can be successful in achieveing their aims, and that everyone's aims are not [edit] necessarily the same.

Absolutely. Which is why the constant slanting of the facts by vested interests employed in the industry isn't helpful on a board like this. I don't expect them to bite the hand that feeds them, only to be a little more honest.

Ark_Welder

Rollinghome wrote: »

Absolutely. Which is why the constant slanting of the facts by vested interests employed in the industry isn't helpful on a board like this. I don't expect them to bite the hand that feeds them, only to be a little more honest.

Vested interests could also include the providers of index tracking products.

Rollinghome

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Vested interests could also include the providers of index tracking products.

It could but then all the best known index tracker UT's are from investment managers who also offer managed funds.

One big difference of course is that whereas they normally pay little or no commission on their trackers they do pay advisers generous commission to push their more profitable managed funds. Typically, just the annual trail commission alone they pay to the adviser is a higher proportion of the AMC than they take themselves for actually managing a 'managed' fund.

(You'll also have noticed how supermarkets always put the 'reassuringly-expensive' high-profit lines at eye-level and the better value products high up or low down. It works.)

Ark_Welder

Rollinghome wrote: »

(You'll also have noticed how supermarkets always put the 'reassuringly-expensive' high-profit lines at eye-level and the better value products high up or low down. It works.)

In my experience it is sometimes worth paying the extra for a better quality result. 'Cheaper' does not always imply good value. Washing-up liquid, for instance.

cloud_dog

Ark_Welder wrote: »

'Cheaper' does not always imply good value. Washing-up liquid, for instance.

Oh Ark, please be careful about talking in the abstract, some people get very upset if you do.

gadgetmind

cloud_dog wrote: »

Oh Ark, please be careful about talking in the abstract, some people get very upset if you do.

Little abstraction involved, but certainly analogy. Not a great analogy either as ISTR that the "quality" washing up liquid often has more salt as a thickener, hence the advice not to wash the car with it.

Reassuringly expensive has never really worked for me; I need an objective way to assess quality (and thus value) that has nothing to do with relative prices.

Dunno whether this is analogy or abstraction but you might find it interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemon

I've seen people argue that it applies to items on ebay ("they look the same, let's go for the cheapest OR this one is a bit more expensive, must be better") and also to investment products ("Oooo, this prospectus is on *really* good paper, and look at that guy's Rolex!").

Ark_Welder

gadgetmind wrote: »

Not a great analogy either as ISTR that the "quality" washing up liquid often has more salt as a thickener, hence the advice not to wash the car with it.

Possibly why it tastes so good on chips, unlike car shampoo.

Totton

Ditched my trackers and ETF's some time ago after they failed to match my active funds and investment trusts. Whilst studies may show that x% of fund managers fail to beat the index tracker, they also show that some managers consistently do beat the market over time, the trick is not to buy or hold the dogs :-) If you don't have time to follow your funds etc, then buy trackers but be prepared to consistently gain less than the markets.

Regards,
Mickey

fairleads

Rollinghome wrote: »

It would help if we could have more objective discussions of the subject rather than the slanted absolutist waffle of vested interests we tend to get here whenever the subject crops up.

Agreed, and go so far as to say that applies when almost any financial topic is discussed on this or any other web forum which are in turn the happy hunting ground of that gaggle of women of ill repute; Vis - Miss Construe, Miss Representation, Miss Interpretation, and the terrible twin sisters Miss Understand-Deliberately and Miss Calculate-Deliberately .