What can be done about HL?

utigers

I'm not sure if anything can be done to regulate the nonsense they come out with but this has really annoyed me.

This article : http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-news-and-investment-ideas/fund-news--and--alerts/schroder-uk-mid-250-research-alert

Ok its the same garbage they quite often come out with and the article looks quite normal. However they are making out the Schroder fund is a poor performer (it is) using performance figures from 2007 when in that year they promoted it and it was in the Wealth 150! Using figures to show a fund in a bad light from a year when it was promoted by them is unacceptable IMO and they should be ashamed of themselves.

They need reigning in as they have become to powerful and 'newcomers' like me in 2007 still swing off there every word.

TH1878

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wealth 150 is the top 150 funds that pay them the most 'marketing allowance'

From the little I do know about the Wealth 150, it's usually about 6-9 months behind the curve.

dunstonh

Funny thing is that not too long ago, they had the schroder 250 on their wealth 150 list despite it never in its history outperforming the non commission paying HSBC mid cap fund (which has never been on the wealth 150 list).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wealth 150 is the top 150 funds that pay them the most 'marketing allowance'

The marketing 150 list does seem to promote funds that shouldnt be there in addition to those that should.

brasso

utigers wrote: »

I'm not sure if anything can be done to regulate the nonsense they come out with but this has really annoyed me.

This article : http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-news-and-investment-ideas/fund-news--and--alerts/schroder-uk-mid-250-research-alert

Ok its the same garbage they quite often come out with and the article looks quite normal. However they are making out the Schroder fund is a poor performer (it is) using performance figures from 2007 when in that year they promoted it and it was in the Wealth 150! Using figures to show a fund in a bad light from a year when it was promoted by them is unacceptable IMO and they should be ashamed of themselves.

They need reigning in as they have become to powerful and 'newcomers' like me in 2007 still swing off there every word.

I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is. That they once had high hopes for the fund that weren't fulfilled? Well, stuff happens. We all make bad judgment calls, and without reading their small print I'm certain that they make clear that their Wealth 150 funds come with no guarantees.

It's possible to show whatever you want to show if you carefully choose the right length of time. But 5 years is a pretty standard length of time to judge a fund, and I see from glancing at their record that the current price is still some way below what it was then, so it seems to me that HL are simply telling their clients that they could do better elsewhere.

What's the problem?

qpop

I think you could do worse than pick a Wealth 150 fund. Your chances of picking a dog are reduced from just throwing darts at the whole fund universe and picking those they hit.

Neither is a particularly sensible long-term investment strategy, but hey-ho.

Totton

brasso wrote: »

... 5 years is a pretty standard length of time to judge a fund, and I see from glancing at their record that the current price is still some way below what it was then, so it seems to me that HL are simply telling their clients that they could do better elsewhere.

What's the problem?

Have to agree with you here, HL usually get it in the neck for not taking funds out of their 150 top choices!

utigers

The problem is they are comparing their new fund against one of the worst funds in that sector. This is poor practice IMO, but thats marketing?

Also selecting a fund you promoted in 2007 and comparing its bad performance in that year to enhance the credentials of this new fund is laughable. It gives the article no credentials.......most of the people reading this already know that but there will be more 'suckers' I'm sure.