We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
£100000 to invest where and how to?
Options
Comments
-
Just to throw an alternative in here. Depends how confident you are in dealing within a Self Select ISA, but my personal opinion, as a confident share dealer within my own limitations, would be to plump for solid companies in the FTSE100 and FTSE250 yielding 4 or 5% dividends, spread over different market sectors. Shares are considered risky investments by some, but larger companies and diversification minimises the risk. Share investment is not for all personalities though!0
-
Shares are considered risky investments by some, but larger companies and diversification minimises the risk. Share investment is not for all personalities though!
Investing is individual shares is highly risky.
Might be alright for some, but there is no need to assume this risk. If you invest in funds, you can get the best of both worlds - exceptional growth from some companies, but relative safety from steady performers against companies that are losing wholesale.
Check out the performance of FTSE 250 companies over the last 5 years, as an example for spreading / lowering your risk.0 -
You seem to have taken just the last bit of what I said and ignored this statement:Investing is individual shares is highly risky....FTSE100 and FTSE250...spread over different market sectors...Might be alright for some, but there is no need to assume this risk. If you invest in funds, you can get the best of both worlds - exceptional growth from some companies, but relative safety from steady performers against companies that are losing wholesale.
Check out the performance of FTSE 250 companies over the last 5 years, as an example for spreading / lowering your risk.
The OP is suggesting enough money to diversify the investment and therefore spread the risk. Funds are all very well for small investments, but they carry their own risks of poor performance, and are much more costly to buy and sell than individual shares, plus they have an ongoing management cost. To say funds give the best of both worlds is incorrect, they will smooth out the gains and losses vs individual shares, but with a balanced portfolio of shares, your costs will be lower.0 -
... Funds are all very well for small investments, but they carry their own risks of poor performance, and are much more costly to buy and sell than individual shares, plus they have an ongoing management cost. To say funds give the best of both worlds is incorrect, they will smooth out the gains and losses vs individual shares, but with a balanced portfolio of shares, your costs will be lower.
Sorry, I dispute everything in that statement. The assertions and comparisons don't stand up to scrutiny, at least in any sort of universally consistent way.'We don't need to be smarter than the rest; we need to be more disciplined than the rest.' - WB0 -
Well, Google "how much does it cost to buy and sell funds" and you will see that it is not easy to work out the true cost of buying, selling and running funds. The very fact that the governement wants to legislate for more transparent pricing sets alarm bells ringing for me!Sorry, I dispute everything in that statement. The assertions and comparisons don't stand up to scrutiny, at least in any sort of universally consistent way.
With £100,000 to invest, I would buy 10 shares paying 5%+ dividends at £10,000 each at £5 per deal = £50. That's 0.05%. I don't think you can buy a fund for as little as that? And I think you will be hard pushed to find a fund that yields 5%+.
If these shares continued to pay a high enough dividend I would not have to sell them at all. That's 0 ongoing cost, but lets say I sell and buy 2 shares per year. That's £5 per trade, 2 buys and 2 sells = £20. I don't think any fund charges that or less per year to run it. So precisely what sort of universally consistent scrutiny are you applying?0 -
You've missed the point. I'm not looking for a consistent rule, I'm saying it's horses for courses.
Shares aren't cheaper than funds, they can be. Regular monthly investing is just one of many obvious holes in the theory.'We don't need to be smarter than the rest; we need to be more disciplined than the rest.' - WB0 -
I must have misread what you said. I thought you disagreed with EVERYTHING in the statement.
I thought I had shown quite clearly that if you search for the cheapest options funds ARE more expensive than shares, and are much less likely to give as good an income.
It is true that not everyone feels comfortable investing in shares, and for that reason they are not for everybody, but it is my firm belief, and I feel I have shown, that a selection of top 250 individual shares will outperform a selection of funds, and the investment will be cheaper to run and, if properly spread between different companies and market sectors, without any greater risk.
Yes, you can pick shares that are very risky and very poor income providers, but one usually looks to maximise ones investments.
And who said anything about regular investing?0 -
II thought you disagreed with EVERYTHING in the statement.
Correct.
Shares are not cheaper than funds, they can be in some circumstances, not in others. If you want to compare like for like, properly, then a FTSE100 tracker is another obvious example of a hole in your theory.
I'll leave it at that, if you don't grasp what I'm saying, and I don't mean that badly, then there's no point arguing the toss.'We don't need to be smarter than the rest; we need to be more disciplined than the rest.' - WB0 -
Having discovered Candid Financial Advice i realise that Skipton's charges are too high as they work on 1% initial and .75% but thats for investment running from £100000 upwards.As they said to me it takes them 20 hours to set up the advice process from start to finish so any amount less would not be worth their while.
What i thought of doing was to at some point in the near future, cash my ISAs so as to safeguard what i have but continue paying into them because when they finally do hit another trough, I can acquire more units then wait for them to rise again.
I could also invest in another low risk fund then when the time arrives, take the whole lot to an investment manager such as Candid Financial adviser, and get them to manage it for me.In the meantime the lump sums my wife and i are due can go into a bank .
The man from Skipton's also wanted to make several lump sums along the way starting with 5000 over above the iSAs I have I worked out that the funds he has suggested - Premier Multi-Asset Distribution Fun , HSBC Open Global Distribution Fund would have to grow about 8% just to recoup the feesArgentine by birth,English by nature0 -
Well, Google "how much does it cost to buy and sell funds" and you will see that it is not easy to work out the true cost of buying, selling and running funds.
It's actually not too hard to find some facts, e.g. on
http://monevator.com/compare-uk-cheapest-online-brokers/
This reputable website disproves your assertion that funds are more expensive to hold than shares. As JohnRo said, some can be, others aren't.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards