£50 per month to invest, up to 15 years. Where?

atush

lemon26 wrote: »

Hi atush, I know, sorry! There's so much choice, where to start... I know very little about Asia and the economies over there etc. so was wanting to stick a little closer to home .

I don't want to invest in Europe as it's not going too well for them at the minute but, from teh sounds of it, we're on the up (if you believe everything / anything the Gov't says!).

I know it's over a long term (15 years +) but Asia would seem awfully risky to me...

As D said, most of your assumptions are incorrect.

And you are asking us to tell you exact funds to invest in- we can't do that. As giving financial advice is regulated and D is a professional. I am not, and gave you one I invest in (and one that has done VERY well for me as over the last 5-6 years it has been no1 or 2 of all investment trusts).

If you can't take the nudges, and pushes on areas you are lacking and look up some funds and their performances online, then you really need to pay someone like D in Real Life.

Or you can read up and learn, try Motley Fool website perhaps.

Eponym

Drp8713 wrote: »

I am also going to try a do small top ups where I can to buy some individual shares alongside the finds. I have just put £120 in to buy my first £100 odd pounds of shares. I think these will go in bigger companies, thinking the usuals GSK etc unless I can come up with something better

I assume you mean you are going to buy them through HL in your S+S ISA. Given that your dealing fee will be £11.95 to buy £100 worth of shares, you require the shares to do rather well to make that money back. Have you thought about that?


I too am a small monthly investor with HL. Started with £50pm, now on £85pm. I am currently investing in BlackRock Consensus 100 (I am only 26 so thought it was more appropriate than one with a lower equity percentage as any drops have longer to recover) to build a core which covers most geographies. I also have several other funds as satellites but a core is important.

Drp8713

Yes i know i need to make over 11.95% to break even but a. i am in it for the long term and b. i want to start small with individual shares to see how i do before i go any bigger. My LGPS AVC is in the boring Prudential Fixed Interest fund so all Gilts and Like you im 25 so time is on my side

dunstonh

My LGPS AVC is in the boring Prudential Fixed Interest fund so all Gilts and Like you im 25 so time is on my side

Why have you got such a low risk/low potential fund for your pension that will have something like 40 years to be invested yet are looking at single company shares for money that will likely be for a much shorter term?

Drp8713

If you look at the performance of their more high risk funds over the last 5 years or so you will see that they havent provided more than a percent or two better returns than their low risk funds.

Obviously past performance does not mean future performance, but for the moment i am building a safe and boring foundation to my avc fund for a few years and not missing much growth currently based on the limted choice of fund available

dunstonh

If you look at the performance of their more high risk funds over the last 5 years or so you will see that they havent provided more than a percent or two better returns than their low risk funds.

In cumulative performance terms that is probably the case. However, in discrete performance terms, the differences would be massive. Looking at just one half of an economic cycle and cumulative performance in that period is not how you compare investments.

Obviously past performance does not mean future performance, but for the moment i am building a safe and boring foundation to my avc fund for a few years and not missing much growth currently based on the limted choice of fund available

You have really missed a lot if you are making regular contributions and comparing cumulative performance. I suggest you look at it again as you are not looking at it the right way.

pat_cashmoney

Could always just bung it in a tracker or 2 of your choice of region and let it get on with it. You are not investing huge amounts so this is a cheap and cheerful option.

Drp8713

dunstonh wrote: »

In cumulative performance terms that is probably the case. However, in discrete performance terms, the differences would be massive. Looking at just one half of an economic cycle and cumulative performance in that period is not how you compare investments.



You have really missed a lot if you are making regular contributions and comparing cumulative performance. I suggest you look at it again as you are not looking at it the right way.

Im looking at discrete performance and some of their active funds have lost money at times where similar funds didnt

Surely as part of a balanced portfolio you should have some lower risk investments, and in my situation surely it is better to get my low risk funds where i have limited choice and get my higher risk funds where i am in more control?

dunstonh

Im looking at discrete performance and some of their active funds have lost money at times where similar funds didnt

I cant see how you could be looking at discrete performance and seeing returns similar to equities. For example, in the 6 months to May 2013, the Pru international equity fund grew by just over 26%. yet the Fixed interest fund fell by just under 1%. Whilst the cumulative performance over the last 5 years is similar (Fixed interest just 10% behind international), the volatility in the middle is very different and discrete performance therefore different.

The last 5 years (up until recently) have been very good for fixed interest. That is against period that has been very volatile for equities. Yet equities have still outperformed.

If you had put in £100pm over that 5 year period, the fixed interest fund would be worth £6613 now. Yet the international fund £7989. That volatility in that period really benefiting on equities being bought on a monthly basis.

Going 100% fixed interest on investments that are going to be there 40 odd years is a really bad way to invest. you cannot look at the returns for the last 5 years and consider them normal long term average. They are short term economic affected returns.

lemon26

Hi Dunston & Atush, thank you very much for your replies. Please accept my apologies, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot etc. and I am fully aware that you can't give advice over a forum, where there is no liability. I'm sorry if it came over like that. Thanks for your advice so far.

I think, as I don't know which benchmark to use (or if I should even use one), I don't know how much of my portfolio shoudl be where...any thoughts, such as % in EU, % in USA, % in Asia? Also, as some money is in very risky funds, would something like property funds balance that out?

Thanks, again, and sorry, again, L