where to get the info?????

dandare

Hi folks i've been reading quite alot on this board looking for pointers and knowledge. by the end of tax year 06/07, i should have between £5000- £10000
between maxed isa's and reg savers/high interest savers. i'm really happy to have squirrelled away this amount, it's not a great fortune, but i'm chuffed none the less.
now from reading various posts i see that savings account are all good and well, if you're with the best payers, but it seems to me that there must be some types of risks taken if you want the money to work better for you.
so i'm looking for some advice or pointers where i could read up on ways to get my stash working best for me.
between the mse boards and reading the local papers finacial tipsters returns on investment for the past few years i'm keen to learn more and hopefully get better returns on my savings.
i'm hoping to be able to top up each year by £1000-£3000, hopefully.
any advice, tips, links appreciated.
ta

RayWolfe

One of the best places to start would be Motley Fool. They do lots of starter articles ... and of course, keep lurking here. ;-)

Cannon_Fodder

Sounds like you are ready for the Equity (aka Stocks & Shares) ISA stage.
Bit of a minefield, but worth it in the long run.
Read up on MSE articles on funds/discount brokers to get an idea.
Specific recommendations are not permitted on the site/forum.

IFAs would need to know your risk profile to make judgements on the weighting of a portfolio of funds that suited you.

Or you can attempt DIY...pick a discount broker, then choose some funds. Common "guidance" is to have a spread across sectors/regions. If you look at http://www.citywire.co.uk/Funds/Home.aspx you'll see in the middle drop-down box, a list of the fund sectors...

You COULD pick the top fund in each sector, but things are not that simple.
"Top" could mean they've done (too) well, and about to suffer a correction. Changing the lists for 3,5,10 years does give you an idea of the names/funds that keep cropping up year after year, as consistent good performers. Names that you'll grow to know, gradually. BUT, even the best fund houses have got their exception that makes/breaks the rule - and you could pick that fund!!

This is where the risks come in that you mention, it necessary to take some, sometime to get a better return - over the long term. Plan on leaving the funds there for 5 years to even out sometimes volatile performance.

MSE, motleyfool, Daily Mail, FT, Moneyextra, Hargreaves Lansdowne etc have a mixture of fund prices, tips, glossaries etc...

HTH

dandare

thanks for the replies, i chunk of reading there to begin with.

cheerfulcat

The Motley Fool has to be tops for education. Make sure to read the Fool School stuff, then have a look around the discussion boards. Incademy is another valuable, free source of information.

Chrismaths

Changing the lists for 3,5,10 years does give you an idea of the names/funds that keep cropping up year after year, as consistent good performers.

I've just had a go at Ed for this, so I thought in the interests of consistency I ought to pick you up on this as well

If you think that looking at 1, 3 ,5, and 10 year performance gives you a clue as to consistency, think again. What you have actually done is counted last year's performance 4 times. So a fund that has been average for 4 years, then has a spurt in the last year will have good 1, 3 and 5 year numbers, but is more likely to have been lucky than good.

It's far better to look at performance over discrete periods, such as calendar years etc. If the fund subscribes to trustnet.co.uk then these are listed under more performance data.

Cannon_Fodder

CM - Granted, more info after initially getting to know the names is a good idea, if you have the info/resources/time/experience to understand what you are reading up on.

I know the answer you will give next, use an IFA then...but when people are new to this, only a few hundred or couple of grand to "play with", then is it really going to be worth the time in finding an IFA who is interested, to either party?

By the way, if there are not lots of funds doing better than 4 years worth of average and 1 year of good, to push that hypothetical fund way down the list for the 10 year figure, then doesn't that in itself tell you something about the sector?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but I'd also like to pass an observation about the comments seen on here re Fund Managers. Some are getting well known, as consistent performers, each many be specialists in certain sectors etc...

What I want to ask is, if a particular fund manager is only as good as his past performance, how is it allowable to consider past performance for a person but not for a fund...the number of times on here that IFAs say "past performance is not something to be relied on"...is uncountable. Yet, there are comments about so-and-so is solid, someone-else has changed sectors, not so good etc...

I'm NOT saying there are wrong, don't RELY on it, yes. I'm just a bit confused. Short of wetting your finger and sticking it in the air, it must form SOME element of consideration. The question I suppose is how much, how do you strike the balance?

And re the people side, how do you know that fund manager J Bloggs did not go on a bender last night and is about to wipe out his fund, or he got divorced last week and is about to enter a depresssion, etc, etc - extreme examples, just trying to get across the uncertainties, but at the end of the day, everyone; IFA, diy investor, institution, etc etc has to take the plunge, only so much information can be gathered, and all the time you spend, COULD end up as so much time wasted, when the week after investing some new fact comes to light and you've got it wrong...!?