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!
Fees
Comments
-
But that's having new buyers pay a premium to existing holders and isn't fair to the new buyers.
Being cruel, well, no-one is being forced to buy. And it's better than making existing holders fund the costs of those later to the party.
I do take your point, but I find it hard to get excited about a one-off sub 0.5% cost, particularly given the much higher and ongoing costs of alternatives.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
For me it wouldn't be a one-off cost because I'd sell at least some of the holding sometimes and buy more at others. It can easily be enough to make it better to choose a different product if the holding times are only a few years.
But the bigger issue would be the possible ethics and compliance matters. If that actually exists, which is why I asked them to tell me more about it.0 -
It can easily be enough to make it better to choose a different product if the holding times are only a few years.
Would you be buying and selling enough of your holdings for it to really make much difference?
As it happens, and straight from the ministry of "do as I say and not as I do", I went over-weight on the FTSE 250 in early Dec 2011 using a HSBC tracker because I was predicting a bounce that would be biased more towards the smaller caps. This came over xmas and Q1 so I trimmed back that tracker in April.
Maybe my passive mindset still needs some work?
But the bigger issue would be the possible ethics and compliance matters. If that actually exists, which is why I asked them to tell me more about it.
Fair enough. My knowledge of compliance issues is close to zero. Ditto ethics!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Because one option includes them and the other doesnt. How is that a fair comparison?
Which option? Are you being deliberately obtuse now?
If I buy a £100 lawn mower, yes the retailer takes a slice as does the manufacturer, but I still have a lawn mower and there's no ongoing costs.
If I put £100 into a fund, I still have £100 but the retailer and the 'manufacturer' will take a slice every year until I withdraw whatever money is in my account.
You're the one who brought up this stupid comparison, you can't claim it's not 'fair' now. Unless you're advocating that Argos should be required to publish their take on all products they sell? If so that's daft because the retail cost is implied in the difference retailers charge for the same product.0 -
You're the one who brought up this stupid comparison, you can't claim it's not 'fair' now.
The problem with all analogies, particularly those comparing something concrete with something abstract, is that while they can serve to entertain, rarely do they stand up to the scrutiny of a lengthy debate.
Software and cars, investments and groceries, chalk and cheese!
I avoid the hefty fees of most repairmen and garages by fixing my own appliances, computers and cars. I avoid the hefty cost of fruit and veg at supermarkets by cycling to local markets. I now avoid the majority of fees on investments as I have learned how to DIY and have carefully researched products and platforms.
You can complain or you can change. I decided to change.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
His original complaint was that a web page designed to compare two funds with different charges wouldn't also allow comparison to other areas of making savings. The page does a very good job of demonstrating the relative effect of charges on comparable investing strategies.gadgetmind wrote: »The problem with all analogies, particularly those comparing something concrete with something abstract, is that while they can serve to entertain, rarely do they stand up to the scrutiny of a lengthy debate.
I don't understand why he's continued down this line of argument unless he's trying to downplay the effect of charges by muddying the waters. It's irrelevant. He's also diverged from his argument by answering questions that I didn't even ask, which is odd.0 -
The page does a very good job of demonstrating the relative effect of charges on comparable investing strategies.
I tend to agree. Compound interest is a powerful force (no, Einstein probably didn't say what people quote him as saying!) and compound charges work in a similar way.
However, we can all argue about this until we're blue in the face. With everything we buy, we either pay what's being asked, haggle, or walk away. As investments are now a buyer's market (not true a decade or so back) the latter two are splendid ways to overcome "sticker shock".I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Depends on what's happening. Yes, I might switch 100% of UK into M&G Recovery or small caps, say. In one pension pot I sold half of my UK tracker holding in the week before the French/Greek/Spanish elections, along with half of a global tracker ETF, though I have quite a bit in the Vanguard global tracker fund still.gadgetmind wrote: »Would you be buying and selling enough of your holdings for it to really make much difference?
I think your passive mindset is somewhat corruptgadgetmind wrote: »Maybe my passive mindset still needs some work?
You do a pretty good job of disagreeing here in an ethical way.gadgetmind wrote: »Ditto ethics! 0 -
I have quite a bit in the Vanguard global tracker fund still.
I have enough in that fund to buy a small house. OK, the roof might need some work, but it's a house.I think your passive mindset is somewhat corrupt
I'm doing more "dynamic" asset allocation that I feel is justifiable, but it's working so far. And, of course, there is my veritable menagerie of demons in the shape of my tech investments and my high-yield portfolio.You do a pretty good job of disagreeing here in an ethical way.
I always seek to have plenty of clear blue water between disagreeing and being disagreeable. I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Very good job is stretching it a bit far - it doesn't even seem to be getting the calculation right compared with their own savings calculator. It does do a half decent job of showing the effect of buying exactly the same fund with different levels of charges and discounts. Like knocking off 0.5% if you pay a fee or do something else to eliminate trail commission to an IFA.The page does a very good job of demonstrating the relative effect of charges on comparable investing strategies.
He actually had a good point with the supermarket comparison. Here's how it goes:I don't understand why he's continued down this line of argument
Farmer: gets maybe 40% of total price
Shipper: maybe 10-20%
Tesco: maybe 10-30%
Petrol station and car costs: depends on your costs
Fund manager: typically around 0.7% (out of 1.5%)
Brokers: maybe 0.1-0.2%, depending on fund trading strategy, perhaps more, perhaps less
Platform: about 0.3%
IFA or retail platform add-on: about 0.5%
The general levels of the supply chain are similar and the Tesco and its supply chain charges get compounded if invested over time just like the fund charges do.
Find ways to make the distribution cheaper and you can cut costs and invest the saved money yourself.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards