We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I thought things like trading costs were additional overheads over and above the TER. I think I heard that active managers tend to churn their funds quite a lot. So maybe higher TER also implies additional costs due to higher churn. But this is pure speculation.
Trading costs do not form part of the TER. However, trading costs are reported in the long-form of funds' annual reports, so the true costs of dealing can be determined.
Living for tomorrow might mean that you survive the day after.
It is always different this time. The only thing that is the same is the outcome.
Portfolios are like personalities - one that is balanced is usually preferable.
"Expense ratios are strong predictors of performance. In every asset class over every time period, the cheapest quintile produced higher total returns than the most expensive quintile."
To be fair though, they were lumping funds into about four or five asset classes. I assume they were using American classifications. And although they were using different lengths of time, they all ended on the same date, so they would all have had at least one year in common. Nevertheless, the cheapest quintile consistently won in each instance, which is hard to explain away by pure chance.
