Drop in well paid using IFA's

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

yes, a decent return can easily still be made with [just under] 3% in charges

Or a much better return with lower charges.

Just look at the Jupiter Merlin range of funds.

Or look instead at the vast majority of high-fee funds that haven't made a decent return, mostly because of these high fees.

qpop

gadgetmind wrote: »

Or a much better return with lower charges.



Or look instead at the vast majority of high-fee funds that haven't made a decent return, mostly because of these high fees.

Please qualify.

Funds that haven't made a decent return tend to be due to bad management, bad luck, etc.

Also, consider, if all active fund managers suddenly resigned tomorrow, whose decisions would the trackers track?

Trackers only work in efficient markets, and wouldn't work at all if there was nothing to track.

2010

dunstonh wrote: »

Fantastic. You never used an adviser but went DIY and bought a product you regretted and are now anti adviser because of that. Way to go on logic.

Don`t be a complete clown and put words in I never said.
Show me where I said I regretted following my own advice.

What I said, and I did put it in bold letters each time was, I could have done better just putting it in an safe fixed rate savings account than the WP bond, where my money basically lined other`s pockets.

gadgetmind

qpop wrote: »

Funds that haven't made a decent return tend to be due to bad management, bad luck, etc.

Funds hold a subset of the market. Some managers think one subset is best, others a different subset, and as they change their minds, they "swap" holdings. Over some periods, one might be right, over other periods, very wrong. Over the long-term, funds tend to perform in line with the whole market minus whatever fees they charge.

As for manager skill, studies have looked for but failed to find "hot hands".

I can provide you for references to this data if you care to examine it in more detail.

<edit>

Just spotted your sig. Aren't Bernstein and Graham part of the compulsory reading list at IFA school?

Trackers only work in efficient markets, and wouldn't work at all if there was nothing to track.

There will always be enough mugs following advice to buy high-fee funds to keep the system working. I should know, I used to be one of these mugs.

I'm still using active funds in some niche areas, and I actively (and VERY successfully) do my own stock picking in some even more narrow areas, but for general UK/US/development equities, trackers work for me.

gadgetmind

qpop wrote: »

Please stop being openly trying to offend people, personal attacks have no place on here.

On that (and I'm sure much more) we can agree.

qpop

gadgetmind wrote: »

Funds hold a subset of the market. Some managers think one subset is best, others a different subset, and as they change their minds, they "swap" holdings. Over some periods, one might be right, over other periods, very wrong. Over the long-term, funds tend to perform in line with the whole market minus whatever fees they charge.

As for manager skill, studies have looked for but failed to find "hot hands".

I can provide you for references to this data if you care to examine it in more detail.



There will always be enough mugs following advice to buy high-fee funds to keep the system working. I should know, I used to be one of these mugs.

I'm still using active funds in some niche areas, and I actively (and VERY successfully) do my own stock picking in some even more narrow areas, but for general UK/US/development equities, trackers work for me.

By qualify, I didn't mean repeat what you said, I meant qualify with some research

The only real long-term academic research that I know of has been committed in America, on American stock markets, which is not a fair comparison to the UK. If you have seen research relating to the UK / European markets regarding the long-term performance of funds vs. the markets concluding that the mean return is market - fees I'd be keen to read it.

If, on the other hand, you're using academic research carried out in the US, make that clear and concede that it's not a fair comparison.

Also the research lacks the capability to compare "like-for-like" - For example, what would be more appropriate would be to compare the long-term performance of top-quartile funds on a given date against the market - why would people choose to invest in a dog fund?

My point is that independent academic research is hard to come by, and the "research" cited on these threads is at best laughable, at worst offensive (MONEVATOR IS NOT RESEARCH, for example).

JamesU

gadgetmind wrote: »

Some people are stupid but others are just under-informed and/or uninterested.
Stupid is as stupid does, but being under-informed can be remedied.

That made me laugh. If quoting Forrest Gump, better take note he still did quite well with something in apples, despite being under-informed and uninterested.

JamesU

2010

JamesU wrote: »

That made me laugh. If quoting Forrest Gump, better take note he still did quite well with something in apples, despite being under-informed and uninterested.
JamesU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump

Great film, great actor.

2010

qpop wrote: »

You seem to think we're all in a big playground and this is some kind of fight.

I'd recommend remembering that we're all adults here and "my dad's bigger than yours" type arguments stopped working many years ago.

Also, you're using ` instead of ', just thought I'd point it out.

The problem with you and the other IFA is when you`re confronted with facts, you don`t like it.
You seem to think everyone needs you and your expensive, poor, most of the time, advice.

In reality, putting a number of products in a hat and letting a parrot pick one out would probably make most people more money than going anywhere near an IFA.

The two main issues that come up time after time with IFA is mis selling and rip off fees/commission and yet reading on this thread alone, they all seem oblivious to it.
Take the blinkers off and stop changing the subject when confronted with it.

gadgetmind

qpop wrote: »

By qualify, I didn't mean repeat what you said, I meant qualify with some research

And I'm happy to do that if you'll promise to read it.

The only real long-term academic research that I know of has been committed in America, on American stock markets, which is not a fair comparison to the UK.

Ah, that lame old canard.

My point is that independent academic research is hard to come by

So, if such research is hard to come by, what justification is there for pushing punters into high fee/trail funds if there is no proof that they beat a tracker?

And even if you feel (and it is just a feeling as you say there is no proof that meets your criteria) that active management is better, why not ITs, which have lower fees and have been shown to have better performance?