Hargreaves Lansdown Master Portfolios

gadgetmind

jamesd wrote: »

No guarantee about today's future, of course

Which is a shame really, because that's the only one that interests me.

The approach of "buying what's gone up" is often called "momentum investing" and it has a habit of working until it suddenly doesn't work.

IronWolf

gadgetmind wrote: »

Well, if active management is good, then more layers of active management must be even better.

Notice that "if".

I think I see a new industry emerging, for IFAA's, Independent Financial Advisor Advisors, they avise you on which advisor to use

I'm gonna get ahead of the game and become an IFAAA immediately

gadgetmind

IronWolf wrote: »

I think I see a new industry emerging, for IFAA's, Independent Financial Advisor Advisors, they avise you on which advisor to use

Thanks for giving me a perfect opportunity to post a link to the story of the Gotrocks.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/newsmakers/buffett_fortune/index.htm

Enjoy!

Ark_Welder

gadgetmind wrote: »

Thanks for giving me a perfect opportunity to post a link to the story of the Gotrocks.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/newsmakers/buffett_fortune/index.htm

Enjoy!

A case of reading the chariman's words instead of reading the chariman's numbers.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47973589&postcount=7
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47976045&postcount=8
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47976789&postcount=9
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47976881&postcount=10
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=49134075&postcount=115
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=49132339&postcount=110

Ark_Welder

jamesd wrote: »

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.

HL's AMC is 1%, so as you have stated, the average underlying funds' charge is 0.72%. Deduct 0.15% from HL's charge to give 0.85% and leaving the 0.72% intact.

There isn't a discount if the fund is held in the SIPP, so how would this be accounted for by the individual fund managment companies? HL would have to tell them what the split was between SIPP and non-SIPP holdings for them to be able to work out their charge.

Other FoF's will also have additional charges of their own that the HL one is unlikely to have, namely fund platform charge (usually around 0.25%) and trail commission (0.5%). Perhaps they might introduce them to generate some extra income, but that would make their offering less 'competitive' than the competition.

dunstonh

Because of their *past* performance. Who knows what the future might bring?

That applies to everything going.

At the end of the day, you go with a tracker to get mid table consistency. Not outperformance. In some sectors that can be quite sensible (an increasing trend in my opinion). However, some people are prepared to pay a little bit more to get the potential of a greater return knowing that it may not do so. In some sectors that can make sense.

Neither option is right or wrong. It is just different opinions and investing is all about opinion because until the future happens, no-one knows which is best.