Professional Finance people no better than amateurs

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

you got it!!

yeah, someone is likely to be better off in trackers than going to an IFA and being told to pump the lot into UTs

Trackers are UTs......... I thought you had understood this?

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

Trackers are UTs......... I thought you had understood this?

LOL!! you nicely sidestepped that 1.9% question...

do you not think it was very nice of an IFA to submit evidence that active fund management wasn't very good? i'm surprised it was only me that thanked him for his post.

dunstonh

yeah, someone is likely to be better off in trackers than going to an IFA and being told to pump the lot into UTs

People call you a troll because you dont know what you are talking about but then try to inflame things. You continue to incorrectly associate IFAs with managed funds and not trackers. You continue to mix up investment type with investment strategy (e.g. trackers vs unit trusts).

You probably wont answer this question as you always tend to ignore then ones you don't suit you. However, I will give it a go in case I get lucky. What about a recommendation from an IFA that builds a portfolio of trackers?

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

you probably wont answer this question as you always tend to ignore then ones you don't suit you. However, I will give it a go in case I get lucky. What about a recommendation from an IFA that builds a portfolio of trackers?

if an IFA recommended trackers I would be impressed. but in every discussion about trackers/ managed you have taken the line that "some managed funds do well". so i do believe the average IFA flogs managed funds, even though evidence says the customer would be better in a tracker.

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

LOL!! you nicely sidestepped that 1.9% question...

do you not think it was very nice of an IFA to submit evidence that active fund management wasn't very good? i'm surprised it was only me that thanked him for his post.

Because I haven't been involved in that discussion have I? It's been through HelpWhereICan, so why would I interfere?

I also find it contradicting that you comment about me missing out some of your posts when HWIC has asked you questions on numerous occassions where you do not respond.

dunstonh

if an IFA recommended trackers I would be impressed. but in every discussion about trackers/ managed you have taken the line that "some managed funds do well". so i do believe the average IFA flogs managed funds, even though evidence says the customer would be better in a tracker.

The evidence does not say that. I would say most IFAs include trackers in their portfolio. Not every portfolio and not for every person. However, they chose them when they are correct. I would say no FAs or multi-tied do but that relies on their employer making them available but that is unlikely.

That is largely irrelevant though as the IFA is paid the same whether it is tracker or managed. So, if the adviser is paid the same then how is it a waste of money one minute but not the next?

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

Because I haven't been involved in that discussion have I? It's been through HelpWhereICan, so why would I interfere?

I also find it contradicting that you comment about me missing out some of your posts when HWIC has asked you questions on numerous occassions where you do not respond.

well i'm involving you with the 1.9% discussion now, do you not think the conclusion from the research is that active management is not cost effective?

HWIC is obviously trying to ask a lot of questions to obscure the fact that he has no academic to support fund managment. anyway he's starting to bore me with his posts that last for ever and have no point to them

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

The evidence does not say that. I would say most IFAs include trackers in their portfolio. Not every portfolio and not for every person. However, they chose them when they are correct. I would say no FAs or multi-tied do but that relies on their employer making them available but that is unlikely.

That is largely irrelevant though as the IFA is paid the same whether it is tracker or managed. So, if the adviser is paid the same then how is it a waste of money one minute but not the next?

IFAs will sell some trackers, but i'd imagine 99% of what they sell is managed, unless you have evidence otherwise?

so are you saying all trackers have trail commission? just like managed funds? or is that another half truth?

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

IFAs will sell some trackers, but i'd imagine 99% of what they sell is managed, unless you have evidence otherwise?

So basically what you are saying is that everythign you say is correct (even without evidence) unless someone can prove otherwise?

How about, instead of saying "I imagine" how about you say "Here is evidence to say".....

darkpool wrote: »

well i'm involving you with the 1.9% discussion now, do you not think the conclusion from the research is that active management is not cost effective?

HWIC is obviously trying to ask a lot of questions to obscure the fact that he has no academic to support fund managment. anyway he's starting to bore me with his posts that last for ever and have no point to them

I'm not getting into a debate with someone who dismisses other people's evidence because you couldn't be bothered to read it.

That is the essence of you being a troll.

If you want to take part in a debate you cannot pick and choose what evidence to look at. You look at what's given infront of you, then you disprove it with other evidence, not by saying "I couldn't be bothered to read it"

darkpool

i think the most pressing question is the 1.9% one ......