Using HL performance charts

george278

I am reviewing the portfolio of funds that I hold with Hargreaves and Lansdown, particularly comparing the performance of actively managed funds versus trackers.

Do the performance charts take into account the annual charge on the fund, so that you can easily compare a low charging tracker with a high charging active fund?

Totton

Yes, the performance value of the fund includes all costs taken out. I don't know if there will be some discrepancies when measuring specific date periods that preclude a dividend payout etc but for most investors the performance tables are accurate enough.

A good site for comparing funds in the same sector is Trustnet http://www.trustnet.com

gadgetmind

BestInvests's "Spot the Dog" is also worth a read.

Glastoun

Totton wrote: »

Yes, the performance value of the fund includes all costs taken out. I don't know if there will be some discrepancies when measuring specific date periods that preclude a dividend payout etc but for most investors the performance tables are accurate enough.

Could you clarify that please? So if a chart shows a fund gaining 10% in a year, and you had £100 at the beginning, you would have £110 at the end after having paid any fees?

Is this the same with the price charts, e.g. 100p to 110p?

And the same for the headline figures, e.g. if a fund rose 1p since yesterday, is that also after fees? (I'm thinking probably not in this case)

bowlhead99

Glastoun wrote: »

Could you clarify that please? So if a chart shows a fund gaining 10% in a year, and you had £100 at the beginning, you would have £110 at the end after having paid any fees?

Is this the same with the price charts, e.g. 100p to 110p?

I don't use HL but I think yes, if by fees you mean the annual management fees and expenses charged to the funds and paid out of the fund's assets. It will likely not include an initial setup fee, because an existing holder looking at the chart over the year will not have paid any of those setup fees. For many funds these are nil or 'discounted' to nil anyway. Also for comparability of data between investment types, the price chart will not show fees you pay to HL (e.g. £1-2 pm platform fee, or the 0.5% you pay to hold a share or investment trust within their ISA)

And the same for the headline figures, e.g. if a fund rose 1p since yesterday, is that also after fees? (I'm thinking probably not in this case)

It would be after management fees and expenses because the administrator/ accountant calculating the NAV is going to accrue them daily to the extent they can be known about. Otherwise there would be a price shock once a month or quarter or year as it suddenly lost a couple of a percent (or fraction thereof) on management fee payday.

The charting tool at trustnet.com is a bit more advanced, as in addition to price vs total return (ie with dividends reinvested or without), you can select between 'bid to bid' basis (sell price then vs sell price now) and 'offer to bid' (buy price then vs sell price now). This is relevant for a fund or a share which has a wide spread between buy price and sell price - the largest listed shares, and OEICs, don't have any significant spread.

Totton

Glastoun wrote: »

Could you clarify that please? So if a chart shows a fund gaining 10% in a year, and you had £100 at the beginning, you would have £110 at the end after having paid any fees?

Is this the same with the price charts, e.g. 100p to 110p?

And the same for the headline figures, e.g. if a fund rose 1p since yesterday, is that also after fees? (I'm thinking probably not in this case)

Fund stats are historical and there is little point in looking at stats over a one-day period. Dividends and costs are applied at set dates so naturally will not be applied to all measurements but long term they are.

C_Mababejive

My perception is that performance charts always tend to point upwards !

bigadaj

C_Mababejive wrote: »

My perception is that performance charts always tend to point upwards !

Certainly true for HLs recommendations, the cynical might suggest that their cut could be greater for those they push, not that I'm suggesting any such thing.

ozzage

bigadaj wrote: »

Certainly true for HLs recommendations

Are you suggesting that they falsify the performance charts of the funds that they push?

Quite a claim!

Jegersmart

ozzage wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they falsify the performance charts of the funds that they push?

Quite a claim!

I take it to mean that they tend to recommend already well performing funds?

J