We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
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.
📨 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!
Hargreaves Lansdown Master Portfolios
sorcerer
Posts: 878 Forumite
Did anybody see the new HL Master Portfolios which they have been recommending, I thought some strange choices. They recommended themselves for the Regular Income portfolio!
http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/master-portfolios
http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/master-portfolios
0
Comments
-
They recommended themselves for the Regular Income portfolio!
Not good when that happens. Especially when its nothing to write home about and more expensive then they disclose (most platforms have moved to TER but they are still using AMC in that part of their site)I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
That is pretty amazing!
If they believe in the underlying funds in their funds, then recommend then in their Master Portfolio, not in their own fund which costs 1% PA more.
Naughty!0 -
Well, if active management is good, then more layers of active management must be even better.
Notice that "if".
I use Hargreaves Lansdown yet totally ignore their investment "advice" for the same reasons why I wouldn't ask an alligator to recommend a safe place to swim.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Hard to see how it costs 1% more when the quoted TER is 1.72% and 1% AMC. So assuming that those TERS are reporting on the same basis and including the underlying fund charges it can't be 1% more. Instead it would imply that the fund is getting the underlying funds for something under 0.72% on average. Then there's the 0.15% discount outside the SIPP which implies less than 0.57% on average for the underlying funds. Not completely impossible but I do have doubts about that.That is pretty amazing!
If they believe in the underlying funds in their funds, then recommend then in their Master Portfolio, not in their own fund which costs 1% PA more.
Naughty!
That compares to 2.43% TER for the Jupiter Merlin Income Portfolio. But the Jupiter fund has delivered a bit over total 20% higher returns over the last five years, after all charges.
Makes it pretty easy to pick between the two.
The FTSE All Share Index has done about 10% better than the HL fund and 10% worse than the Jupiter fund. Both the FTSE and HL funds have substantially higher volatility than the Jupiter fund, which dropped about 20% instead of 40-45% in 2008-9. Over three years the FTSE has beaten both by around 20%.
If I wanted income and lower volatility, what retirees are likely to be after, the Jupiter fund looks like the choice to go for out of those.0 -
Makes it pretty easy to pick between the two.
Picking is easy, getting it right is far harder.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
My understanding is that AMC & TER relate to the cost of running a fund ... nothing to do with any costs of the underlying investments. Am I wrong?Hard to see how it costs 1% more when the quoted TER is 1.72% and 1% AMC. So assuming that those TERS are reporting on the same basis and including the underlying fund charges it can't be 1% more.
Maybe I was wrong in saying it cost 1% more; that should perhaps have been 1.72% more.0 -
Instead it would imply that the fund is getting the underlying funds for something under 0.72% on average. Then there's the 0.15% discount outside the SIPP which implies less than 0.57% on average for the underlying funds. Not completely impossible but I do have doubts about that.
Remember that a good many fund houses offer institutional class shares that do not carry the additional retail fees, e.g. fund platform and commission. Taking the first fund listed for the HL MM I&G FoF (:D), being Artemis Income which has an institutional class share with a TER of 0.79% (sourced from Trustnet).
HL's discount would come out of their own 1% AMC, so the fees due to the underlying funds would not be affected.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.
0 -
gadgetmind, the Jupiter funds have been highly recommended as multi-manager funds for many years because of their performance. And the opposite for the HL funds. Eventually that will turn out to be wrong but so far it hasn't been.
le loup, I expect the TER to include the costs of the underlying funds but I'm not so sure that the HL fund's TER does include them. The Jupiter one and most multi-manager funds do include the underlying fund costs in the TER. Even allowing for institutional funds the required TERs of the owned funds are stretching credibility. Not that it matters that much given the performance of the fund.
Ark Welder, yes, the institutional or discounted institutional are what makes it still possible that the TER is right. The discount comes out of their own fee which is included in the TER, so it still reduces the maximum that the other funds can be charging for it to be profitable.0 -
the Jupiter funds have been highly recommended as multi-manager funds for many years because of their performance.
Because of their *past* performance. Who knows what the future might bring?I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
I know what the future brought because it's already happened. Same for others who have mentioned them for some time now. No guarantee about today's future, of course, but the future of the past worked out well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards