Scottish Friendly My UK Tracker Options (ISA)

masonic

mal48 wrote: »

In reply to dunstohn, it was masonic who used the unfortunate colloquialism 'dodgy', possibly libellously.

:rotfl:

I don't promote products fo for profit, but if you like to think I do, so be it.

I think it is more likely that you are doing so for free. Some people become so wedded to an investment decision that they cannot see it for what it is and cannot tolerate any criticism of it.

As for masonic, I correctly predicted that he'd respond with charges, thinking them more important than net returns. A product that consistently beats the All Share Index by more than 5% is hardly low quality. Risk is designated high, but comparable with similar funds and in line with the risk of the UK stock market. Lower risk funds are available on My Choice. Finally, if masonic thinks masonic is right, there's little to be said, Mal

You predicted wrong. My comments are about risk adjusted returns. It should be clear to anyone reading that your notion that I value low charges above high returns is just a Strawman constructed because my actual position is much harder for you to attack.

You have already admitted that your assessment of risk is a "guess". You cannot say whether or not the returns are similar to comparable funds because the fund is too opaque to perform that assessment, but it is clear that a more expensive product will tend to take on more risk in order to generate the same returns as a cheaper product.

I think the comments made so far would be enough for any unsuspecting person to think twice about considering a product like this, so I'll leave you to continue your promotional activities.

mal48

When this thread opened the charges were as they are now. dunstonh and masonic just didn't realise that. On page 5 of SF My Choice Key Facts it says that 'Overall the fund will be designed to match the historic level of risk associated with investing in the Uk stock market. This does not mean that the fund will track or act like the UK stock market, only that in the past an investor could expect a similar level of risk from this fund.' Clear enough and not opaque. A good level of risk to reward, with lower risk SF funds available. The return of my SF portfolio is consisently above the All Stocks Index. I'm pleased with that. I could make more elsewhere, probably with greater time and effort, but I don't see the point of putting off novice investors who want encouraging, not to read posters denigrating a perfectly good product, M

mal48

dunstonh is clearly still concerned with charges per se and ignoring net returns. masonic is trying to claim greater sophistication and saying that it's the ratio of risk to reward that concerns him. He's now been answered, the risk is reasonable and the rewards are high, M

jimjames

mal48 wrote: »

dunstonh is clearly still concerned with charges per se and ignoring net returns. masonic is trying to claim greater sophistication and saying that it's the ratio of risk to reward that concerns him. He's now been answered, the risk is reasonable and the rewards are high, M

I think you're just making yourself look silly now trying to score points against well respected members of the forum. For someone supposedly unconnected you seem very determined to attempt to justify this poor value investment product which is very odd.

masonic

I said I'd leave you to wallow in your marketing, but I won't tolerate factually incorrect assertions being made against me unchallenged. So...

mal48 wrote: »

When this thread opened the charges were as they are now. dunstonh and masonic just didn't realise that.

Where exactly did I give the impression that I believed the charges were anything other than 1.5% + internal expenses within the fund?

masonic is trying to claim greater sophistication and saying that it's the ratio of risk to reward that concerns him. He's now been answered, the risk is reasonable and the rewards are high,

I made that point way back on the 9th April and have repeated it again today. I have not been answered. Specifically, I've yet to receive an answer to my questions from April. In case you missed them, here they are:

"So how did the Higher Fund fare in 2008-2009?"
"who is the fund manager and what is their long term track record for outperforming the market?"
"Perhaps you can post the performance figures for the last 5 years and also 3 year volatility stats so that we can judge for ourselves."

I'm not really interested in the answers any longer TBH, but these are questions anyone considering investing in the fund should be able to answer before parting with any money, so the answers could be helpful to anyone not already put off.

mal48

To respond to dunstonh's comment about gimmicks, the Vectis card is a pretty good one with continual savings from major supermarkets and much of the high street on all products. I realise this won't appeal to 'serious investors' , but it might interest readers on a money saving website. As for costs, SF as a mutual doesn't have shareholders and so don't have to pay them. Instead they can employ excellent investment staff and get really good returns for their clients, M

mal48

Ok, it was dunstonh who thought the charges were higher. As for your other points, they've been effectively answered numerous times. The L and G underlying funds can no doubt be tracked back historically by geeks to their hearts' content.
Risk and volatility for the Higher Fund is similar
to the UK stock market. That's been the case
historically and that's been pointed out to you.
As I said the risks are reasonable and the
rewards are high, M

masonic

I was looking for factual answers, not opinions, but nevermind...

mal48

If jimjames, respected or otherwise, still thinks this a poor value product, he either hasn't read the threads or he's immune to reason. Having read his comments elsewhere, I'd say he's so prejudiced against this particular company, that little I could offer would alter his opinion.

mal48

I only mind to the extent that masonic has received numerous detailed factual replies, M