Leaving HL

Ryan_Futuristics

masonic wrote: »

You do realise that simulation is based on regularly dividing £500 into 15 funds each month (180 buy orders per year) AND £250 being split between 6 shares each month (72 buy orders per year) AND 50 individual fund trades AND 24 individual share trades. Total trades: 326

No, and in keeping with forum elder protocol I'll now berate you for this mistake constantly throughout the entire of this thread

Rollinghome

masonic wrote: »

You do realise that simulation is based on regularly dividing £500 into 15 funds each month (180 buy orders per year) AND £250 being split between 6 shares each month (72 buy orders per year) AND 50 individual fund trades AND 24 individual share trades. Total trades: 326

You couldn't make it up. :rotfl:

To be fair, for someone who can't make up his mind and changes his investment strategy every week it probably looks quite reasonable.

Ryan_Futuristics

jimjames wrote: »

Nicely picked numbers that seem designed to flatter. No fidelity either, are you excluding them for a reason other than they're not a bank?
How about no trades per year? Does iweb come out cheapest?

I assume it doesn't include Fidelity because you can't trade shares/ITs with it

With no trades, III comes out cheapest (running the numbers I just ran), but I assume the simulation doesn't include dividends they forget to pay you

masonic

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

Here's monthly investments into 2 Investment Trusts and 4 OEICs

Just noticed the text mentioned 2 ITs and 4 OEICs, but the image shows 6 and 15. Ryan, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've mixed up the images or something. Let me do it for you using the other numbers from your image (so here is investing into 2 ITs and 4 OEICs, with an annual rebalance 4 fund trades and 2 share trades per year)...

Ryan_Futuristics

Rollinghome wrote: »

You couldn't make it up. :rotfl:

To be fair, for someone who can't make up his mind and changes his investment strategy every week it probably looks quite reasonable.

I ran it again, just above, with 2 funds and 2 shares

Bit pathetic

jimjames

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

I assume it doesn't include Fidelity because you can't trade shares/ITs with it

With no trades, III comes out cheapest (running the numbers I just ran), but I assume the simulation doesn't include dividends they forget to pay you

How can iweb not come out cheaper when it costs £25 compared to £80 for iii?

I hold all Acc funds so no reinvestment needed.

masonic

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

I ran it again, just above, with 2 funds and 2 shares

Bit pathetic

You are still making 50 fund trades and 24 share trades IN ADDITION to monthly regular savings into 2 funds (24 trades) and 2 shares (24 trades).

It is a bit pathetic.

Ryan_Futuristics

masonic wrote: »

Just noticed the text mentioned 2 ITs and 4 OEICs, but the image shows 6 and 15. Ryan, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've mixed up the images or something. Let me do it for you using the other numbers from your image (so here is investing into 2 ITs and 4 OEICs, with an annual rebalance 4 fund trades and 2 share trades per year)...

No because now you're only doing 6 annual trades

I say if you're not using a trading platform to do something to add Alpha or mitigate risk (cost-averaging) you're better off investing direct

masonic

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

No because now you're only doing 6 annual trades

I say if you're not using a trading platform to do something to add Alpha or mitigate risk (cost-averaging) you're better off investing direct

No I'm doing 6 annual trades plus 6 regular savings trades per month.

Ryan_Futuristics

masonic wrote: »

You are still making 50 fund trades and 24 share trades IN ADDITION to monthly regular savings into 2 funds (24 trades) and 2 shares (24 trades).

Wait a minute