Opinion on these Funds please.

Triumph13

My 'Yikes' was entirely down to the SE Asia / Emerging Markets bias. I too would be going 100% equities at that age.

Thrugelmir

For a fund of that size a portfolio of FTSE defensive equities would be producing an income of over £1k a year with minimal fees.

kidmugsy

alexanderalexander wrote: »

With a 20+ year time horizon, I don't see why it shouldn't be 100% equities

Two reasons. (i) When equities crash, with what is he going to buy the bargains if he has had no non-equity assets? (ii) If he's 100% in equities when equities crash there is too big a risk of his taking the calamity to heart and avoiding investing in future. A diluted crash is less likely to get that result, especially if he yelps "buying opportunity" and then realises that rebalancing brings that about automatically.

riccaricca

Thanks for all who took the time to reply.

Does the cost of £1650 for FA advice and transferring seem high or is that about the going rate?

At the moment my funds are "Friends Life with Profits", Allocation 18.00% and "Friends Life Managed Fund", Allocation 82.00%.
Any one know anything about these funds?

dunstonh

Does the cost of £1650 for FA advice and transferring seem high or is that about the going rate?

That fee is in the ballpark.

riccaricca

What do you mean exactly, dunstonh?

Should I ring around and ask a few FA's what they charge?

Can the FA charge whatever they want or is there a tariff?

As you can see I'm really clueless!!

dunstonh

The fee itself is reasonable for the transaction required. £1500-£2500 is the typical range you frequently see.

an the FA charge whatever they want or is there a tariff?

they are free to publish their own tariff.

riccaricca

Thank you dunstonh for explaining, I told you I'm a novice.

Do you know anything about the Friends Life Funds?
Would it be a good idea to stop paying into these Funds and start investing into some other funds and save all the transfer cost?

alexanderalexander

kidmugsy wrote: »

Two reasons. (i) When equities crash, with what is he going to buy the bargains if he has had no non-equity assets? (ii) If he's 100% in equities when equities crash there is too big a risk of his taking the calamity to heart and avoiding investing in future. A diluted crash is less likely to get that result, especially if he yelps "buying opportunity" and then realises that rebalancing brings that about automatically.

That sounds suspiciously like you're recommending that the OP takes a speculative punt on trying time the market, which is rarely a good idea for a long-term investor. Even for an experienced and dedicated investor I'd probably only recommend it if an area of the market is in very very obvious under- or over-valuation territory (which isn't the case for the vast majority of equity markets at the moment, especially now US/UK smaller companies have suffered a bit of a correction in the past few weeks).

ExMugPunter

I don't think he is recommending people try and time the market as the final statement is 'and then realises that rebalancing brings that about automatically'.

There are many that believe that 100% equities is not the best allocation for anybody and that something like an 70% - 30% split is the optimal. This is because it is the money 'stored' in your bonds/cash portion that automatically spill into your equities when the price of them falls (therefore giving far greater gains in the long run). It isn't timing the market - it is an automatic process.