£100000 to invest where and how to?

donmaico

bigadaj wrote: »

If it's skipton then they are likely to be tied agents, better to speak to an independent financial adviser. If you haven't got any personal recommendations look on unbiased.com and make sure sponsored ads tab is turned off. Speak to a couple, meet them and see if you have any preferences.

It sounds a a though you woudk be looking at around £120k investment which is a decent sum, and skiptons charges look high. There's no reason why you can't haggle with an ifa about their fees, though they all have different target markets so best to check your sums are in line with their business.

It may well be possible to get the initial fee down to 2% or less, and the on going charges to less than 1%, in any case make sure you know what you are getting for your money and ensure you understand the reasoning behind their investment choices, though to get a high level of detail you'll probably have to pay them first. They should be able to describe a general approach before committing and hopefully that makes sense to you and come back here for alternative opinions and hopefully confirmation their approach sounds sensible.

thanks for the unbiased.com suggestion .I looked in there and found someone very close to where I live .He seems to work from home therefore cutting his overheads . His fees are very much more reasonable although I wonder if perhaps they are too low - 1.25% and then 0.5 % per annum.The fact he has a fee menu leaving me in no doubt as to how much his charges would be http://www.activefinanceworks.co.uk/fee-menu

lozzy1965

Am I talking to a couple of fundies who don't like what I am saying???

JohnRo wrote: »

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.

I am guessing that you might be saying that buying a single fund is cheaper than buying multiple shares, but with £100,000 to invest I would not put it all in a single fund, and there is no ongoing costs with shares.
Now, do you grasp what I am saying?
If I have missed the point do please enlighten me with examples.

innovate wrote: »

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.

That link gives the PLATFORM costs for investing in funds, shares, whatever. Broadly speaking these costs are the same for funds and shares. However, funds have additional management costs associated with them. Shares do not. That is why funds are more expensive. These costs are not easy to determine, that is why the government is bringing in legislation to make the costs of funds more transparent.

JohnRo

I'll invest £5000 in 100 UK shares using a single fund costing nothing to buy and peanuts in admin. I can then buy more of the same 100 shares each and every month for nothing more than a corresponding increase in the annual admin fee. I can also do something similar in all regions of the world using the same method with a single fund.

Like I said horses for courses..

So please explain, in detail, how you'll do the same with individual shares for less...

You're the one with blinkers on here, sit back and try to absorb what's being said rather than trumpeting this - shares are always cheaper because they don't have management fees - nonsense.

(apologies to the OP)

lozzy1965

I explained earlier how I would invest £100,000 for a one off cost of £50, no ongoing fees, and an income of over 5% every year. The aim here is to get the maximum return on ones investment. Not do the same thing as each other. I'm happy to trumpet this as a good investment strategy. I'm happy to say that in my humble opinion I cannot find a fund or combination of funds that will beat this as an investment.

JohnRo

lozzy1965 wrote: »

I explained earlier how I would invest £100,000 for a one off cost of £50

The stamp duty alone will cost £500 on a sum of that size.

lozzy1965

JohnRo wrote: »

The stamp duty alone will cost £500 on a sum of that size.

OK, so for a one off charge of £550. So the fund charge needs to be less than 0.5% but there is still no ongoing cost.

innovate

lozzy1965 wrote: »

These costs are not easy to determine, that is why the government is bringing in legislation to make the costs of funds more transparent.

Your information is out of date. The management costs associated with funds are dead easy to determine, and there is no further legislation needed or planned to make it any clearer. You just look up the OCF that comes with each clean class fund.

lozzy1965

innovate wrote: »

Your information is out of date. The management costs associated with funds are dead easy to determine, and there is no further legislation needed or planned to make it any clearer. You just look up the OCF that comes with each clean class fund.

I heard something recently on the radio re fund fees not being transparent. Maybe it's recently come in? This article suggests it was recent:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-2627612/SAM-DUNN-What-price-clarity-fund-fees-Fund-managers-forced-offer-greater-transparency-customers.html
I stand corrected however

dunstonh

These costs are not easy to determine, that is why the government is bringing in legislation to make the costs of funds more transparent.

The Govt doesnt get involved in this sort of thing.

I heard something recently on the radio re fund fees not being transparent. Maybe it's recently come in?

Last July, Ongoing charges were introduced as a new method to publish charges. Most now use that method but some still publish that as well as the AMC and some give prominence to the AMC and not OCF. There is pressure to drop all but the OCF.

The regulator also wants a pounds and pence example as well as the percentage. That is for people that do not understand percentages.

donmaico

just to get back on topic, the way i see things a multi asset fund as suggested by Skipton would be a good idea as it spreads the risk .My current funds would be transferred there and I would continue making investments to it from my cash deposits keeping some back for emergencies .My problem with them are the fees they charge so unless i can negotiate much better terms, i shall contact a local IFA who i found on unbiased.com whose fees are very much more reasonable ,i.e. 1.25% initial and a .75 annual service charge. When i finally reach my target i will contact Candid Financial advice and get them to set me up a retirement fund
How does that sound?

edit actually i have that wrong because I just remember the man from Skipton didnt suggest transferring all our funds to a Premier Multi -asset one, rather he suggested setting up another platform with that fund and HSBC Global distribution both of which we would make contributions to .He also suggested transfering our Invesco fund there but said thet he couldnt do the same with the Schroder one because its in a Skandia platform, so he would have to work within that platform as well.The same applies with the Fidelity ones except he said he would be able to do that sometime in the future .I dont really understand all of that or why but it may explain why the ongoing fees are high