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!
The Stock Market Takes Another Dive - Steer Clear ?
Comments
-
-
-
Indication that Iran is running short of ullage and will need to cut production (that is if they know how to shut a valve)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/energy/oil-gas/iran-rejects-delay-to-mrpl-oil-cargo-delivery-sources/articleshow/12730195.cms0 -
The last 12 years haven't been anything exceptional in terms of equities, both the 30s and the 70s were generally quite poor in terms of their performance and indeed both were worse than this latest bear market. Neither period did anything particular terrible to the long term performance of those assets, indeed for almost all 30-year periods on record equities have been the best performers.
And nice little attack on the 'sheeple' who are just to stupid to stop themselves falling for IFAs and the fund industry pulling wool over our eyes, conveniently ignoring the significant number of people who have never visited an IFA and who use dirt cheap index funds - like myself. But I think people who don't use this strategy are highly likely to outperform the sort of 'advice' you're prattling on about.
IFAs and the fund industry certainly need to be held to account for the fees they charge, but to suggest that anyone who decides to avail themselves of their services is 'brainwashed' is one of the stupidest of the many stupid things you've said in this thread.
If equities have been the indifferent option that you describe for long periods in the past, the financial services industry hasn't caught up with that reality because their pitch is that over the long term equities outperform anything -- equities are a 'no brainer'.
Of course I am not criticising people who decide to buy shares or share based funds with their eyes wide open, whether or not they use IFAs
What I am criticising is how much of the financial services industry tries to point the unwary into products which are best for them (the sellers) and not necessarily the best for the customers. Broken record or not, here it is again -- the FTSE index is the big indicator because it comprises about 80% of total UK quoted equity, and being 20% below its 1999 peak it has (at best) flattened out and is not the ever-growing beast that the financial services industry would like the unwary to believe that it is. Waffle on all you like about balanced portfolios, and other classes on investments, and foreign stocks etc, but the fact remains that UK equities are the bedrock of it all and they no longer can be said to be indisputably the best bet.
I would rather be accused of stupid than of distorting an argument by trying to put words in people's mouths -- and that's what I'm accusing you of.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
I agree it isnt helpful but equally I can understand the frustration. It isn't a case of expressing a contrary view, its the fact that you either aren't listening or aren't understanding the views and are continually repeating incorrect information as "facts". Suggesting that anyone who invests in shares is part of an IFA brigade and a follower is fairly offensive too as there are a huge number of private investors who have never used an IFA and wouldn't appreciate being lumped together in a herd.
Your posts seem to switch from one thing to another and then include things that weren't in a previous post - for example all mention of IFAs now appears to include all fund management companies as well. Of course a fund manager will always try to sell funds, thats their job. It is no different to Tesco selling food and then wondering why you weren't advised not to buy your shopping this week.
Of course it's about the funds management industry as a whole and not just IFAs, I've made that very clear in numerous posts. It's because the IFAs 'protest too much' that their prominence appears overstated.
And of course it's different from Tesco selling food. If someone buys a dodgy, stodgy, gristly pie (not that I'm saying any of Tesco's are like that !), it's cost them a couple of quid and they just decide not to buy one like it again. With investments etc it's often people's pensions and life savings that we are talking about. It's immeasurably more important that the customer is protected from spin, misleading advice, or being sold inappropriate products, The consequences can be severely adversely life-changing.
Why else is there all the regulation of the financial sector (albeit it often off-beam and not properly enforced) -- the FSA and the new body being mooted specifically for consumer protection. Why else do banks, insurance companies etc keep getting pulled up and having to pay massive compensation. I don't know to what extent IFAs have been involved in pointing people and small companies towards these dodgy and inappropriate products, but I would not rule it out.
To brush all this off on the basis of 'caveat emptor' etc is irresponsible and anti-social.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Radiantsoul wrote: »There is not really a riskless asset class though. I guess government index gilts might come close, but even they have some risks.
Cash suffers from inflation risk which are material over a five year plus timescale.
Everything suffers from inflation risk (except anything that is fully guaranteed index linked).No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
After 7 pages which seem to have switched from questioning the wisdom of share based investments to bashing IFAs and fund managers, George in particular seems to be missing what the stock market actually is - a place to buy and sell shares in COMPANIES.
Blaming IFAs or fund managers for stock markets rising and falling seems rather bizarre as it is something that happens all the time. In 1973/4 the UK stock market lost 73% of its value and it must have seemed pretty bleak at the time. But things recovered and I think it is worth viewing the current situation in a similar way.
Long term all the market is doing is measuring the value that it puts on individual companies. If you are a communist and think that these companies should not exist or make a profit then clearly the stock market is not for you. But if you believe that long term companies that produce goods and services that people want to buy will continue to prosper and increase profits which increases their value then it is worth investing in those companies. The actual companies will change as time goes by - if you look at the FTSE100 in 1970s (actually FTSE30 as 100 didn't exist) it will be very different to now but new companies and technologies startup and prosper all the time which is reflected by the companies in the index but they will build value along the way.
Who is blaming IFAs are anyone in financial services for the vagaries of stock markets ? That sounds like another attempt to put words in people's mouths.
It's precisely because of tthe factors that you quote that equity based investments as the major content of the portfolio are not necessarily the best bet for a great many savers and investors. The criticism is of the financial service industry's characteristic lack of candour about these vagaries, and the extent to which some of the products that they peddle are subject to them.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
You've said something akin to this a couple of times now, and I wanted to clarify that the reason you balance a portfolio is for the completely opposite reason to maximizing returns - you do it to spread risk, or avoiding putting all your eggs in one basket.
So what are we saying here, that IFAs come up with recommendations not necessarily aimed at maximising returns for their clients (meaning capital growth plus income) ? If so what on earth is the point of them ? That would be like going to see doctors whose role is not necessarily to make you better.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
IFAs may be subject to failure but like any other professional they have to accept the principle of total responsibility.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards