Innappropriate Investments

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

perhaps it would be best if you had a look at wikipedia?

I don't need to look at wikipedia as I know the answer.

However it is very obvious that you don't.

Meeper

darkpool wrote: »

so what proportion of passive/ active do you typically advise?

It depends on the circumstances.

you really think active fund outperformance persists?

Absolutely it does. You take a broad-brush approach to it. There are a lot of actively managed funds which have consistently out-performed their indices for a significant period of time, more than justifying the additional charges that may be incurred.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

Magpiecottage does not work in the "IFA industry". His company offers services to multiple areas of which IFAs may choose to take advantage of but so can others.

And most of the anti IFA posts come from a handful of trolls on the board who know very little about what they are talking about or have such a chip on the shoulder that they cannot have balanced discussions.

Given the amount of misinformation and rubbish you post and the selective information you choose to exaggerate in your responses, it is no surprise that you get different views back from those that know what they are talking about. In reality, most things are shades of grey. You want it black and white with just two outcomes for everything. Good or bad. yes or no. Life isnt like that.

ohhh, terrible sorry old chap. i thought magpiecottage's profile indicated he did work in the IFA industry.

"I run a consultancy to help Independent Financial Advisers to comply with their rules and resolve complaints."

Troll? because i have a different viewpoint to you? Whenever a pub conversation turns to IFAs/ fund managers it generally turns into a "if they really knew what they were doing they wouldn't need to work" type conversation. Or even a "i went to an IFA and i felt conned" type conversation.

i would imagine this board would follow a similar vein if it wasn't for the good work of you IFAs tirelessly posting the IFA line. Bravo, I just threw my hat in the air as a salute to you IFAs.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

I don't need to look at wikipedia as I know the answer.

ehhhmm ok, so why did you ask then?

no, forget it. I don't want to be drawn into a game of MSE thread ping pong with one of the "perp high income has done well" brigade.

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhmm ok, so why did you ask then?

Very simple.

I want to know ( and still do) what you think the difference is between a tracker and a unit trust.

no, forget it. I don't want to be drawn into a game of MSE thread ping pong with one of the "perp high income has done well" brigade.

Neither do I but then I have never said that at any time.

sabretoothtigger

There are a lot of actively managed funds which have consistently out-performed their indices for a significant period of time, more than justifying the additional charges that may be incurred.

I think the majority dont and that might be the problem but definitely is a few good ones out there, how many succeeded in 2011 though

Meeper

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhmm ok, so why did you ask then?

He was asking, as I was, to get YOUR explanation, because the way you have posted shows that YOU do not know the differences, yet you continue to talk on the subjkect as if you have any clue what you are talking about.

no, forget it. I don't want to be drawn into a game of MSE thread ping pong with one of the "perp high income has done well" brigade.

Nobody mentions that fund except for you when you use it in a mocking tone to suggest that IFA's say it. Where have the IFA's on this board said that?

FOR the record, the track record (total return basis) of Invesco Perpetual High Income is as follows (with the sector averages in brackets):

1 month 0.72% (-1.24%)
3 months 3.47% (0.25%)
6 months 1.23% (-5.81%)
1 year 5.24% (-5.52%)
3 years 33.76% (37.92%)
5 years 10.94% (-6.64%)
10 years 141.90% (48.68%)

So, if you really want to look foolish, you have, because the AAA-rated Inv Perp actually hasn't done too bad at all. It had an interesting few years due to Woodford's move to defensives which reduced the volatility of his portfolio, but he is without doubt one of the best fund managers in the UK. You picked the wrong horse to have a jab at here. How strange that you are mistaken. Again.

Meeper

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I think the majority dont and that might be the problem but definitely is a few good ones out there, how many succeeded in 2011 though

My portfolios generally contain 10-14 funds out of several thousand available. Who cares what the majority were doing? They wouldn't be selected if they were under-performing, would they?

Think before you type.

Linton

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I think the majority dont and that might be the problem but definitely is a few good ones out there, how many succeeded in 2011 though

There are some very lucrative sectors for which trackers do not seem to perform well (eg small companies) or dont exist (eg global technology). Another example is equity income - the tracking ETF was a disaster.

There may be other factors - eg in Emerging Markets you will find that different funds have a different idea of what constitutes an EM, and the % that should be invested in any particular country. Your objectives may rule out the very few trackers that are available in that sector.

talexuser

Since it's been brought up I bought Perp High Income in 1996 as second choice after Jupiter Income the year before. It is the only fund (ISAs every year since then) that I have never changed and added to (selling underperformers) since. Boy am I glad I didn't buy an index tracker!