Beware of fund rankings

masonic

Better_Call_Saul wrote: »

The concerning thing for me is that novice investors who do not do the necessary research take things at face value. Always check different sources of information and the KiiD is the key I suppose.

I'd have thought the main effect of falsely believing a fund hasn't been going for long would be to discourage one from investing, so there should be some incentive for the platforms (and fund houses) to provide appropriate data.

What's interesting is Trustnet seems to default to the fund class with the longer history, whereas with the platform sites you seem to get exactly the dataset you ask for.

Better_Call_Saul

masonic wrote: »

I'd have thought the main effect of falsely believing a fund hasn't been going for long would be to discourage one from investing, so there should be some incentive for the platforms (and fund houses) to provide appropriate data.

What's interesting is Trustnet seems to default to the fund class with the longer history, whereas with the platform sites you seem to get exactly the dataset you ask for.

Never thought of it that way if I'm honest. The way Trustnet does it certainly gives the investor a better idea of previous performance.

masonic

Better_Call_Saul wrote: »

Edit: the Accumulation version of that Baring fund has been available for much more than 5 years.

Yeah, Trustnet has 10+ years, iii has about a year prior to which the unit price flatlines. I have no idea what that's all about. Luckily, iii is terrible for comparing performance data, so nobody is likely to be misled by this.