Chinese/Hong Kong investments

nrsql

>> this thread should be in the gambling section as it has little to do with investing.

There's no real difference between this approach and the more cautious one's. They both rely on knowledge of the market.
The OP just thinks he has found an opportunity and is brave/confident enough to exploit it.

Enough has been posted about trackers performing worse than managed funds (don't agree) so why not use the same logic with sectors.

If I was younger I would be doing exactly the same.
As it is I am doing something similar with a part of my portfolio - I value that separately so it's nothing to do with balancing. I would rather have a big loss or (preferably) gain than the odd few percent with it.

Don't agree with IFA bashing either - they are useful for some people and are necessarily cautious. For anyone with a bit of knowledge or who wants to gain it though.....
You still have to choose and monitor the IFA though so it's not a effortless or risk free process.
A number that post here seem well intentioned even if you might not agree with them so that's not bad. Also you won't get a complete impression by reading a few posts which will be aimed at inexperienced investors.

>> There is always the suspicion that IFA are inclined to recommend those products with most commision for them.
Think the NMA(?) model gives the option of the same renumeration independent of product (presumably more in future years if it performs?). Again something that you would need to look into and monitor.
I daresay there will be a explanatory post about this shortly.

dipsomaniac

I am getting a little bored with this IFA perspecitive. If an IFA advised me to invest entirely in China for the next few years - he would of course be completely irresponsible.

why would an ifa be irresponsible advising you to invest entirely in china? it fits your risk profile otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. i am saying that the vast majority of people with money to invest couldn't risk the potential losses that you are exposed to. they can still invest in china but it would account for a smaller proportion of their portfolio. it may work for you but you were originally saying that you just wanted this one more win and you wouldn't need to take any significant risk anymore - that is not investing.

Another thing about IFAs - they are not really responsible for their clients money. They will never personally suffer if a clients investment which they recommended fails to perform. There is always the suspicion that IFA are inclined to recommend those products with most commision for them.

this is not true. it is in the ifa's best interests that the client is happy with the advice that they are given. if a client is unhappy he will not recommend the ifa. trail commission that an ifa is paid is for ongoing service and is based on the value of the investment. i do not recommend products on the basis of the amount of commission i will receive.

wombat42_2

dipsomaniac wrote: »

why would an ifa be irresponsible advising you to invest entirely in china? it fits your risk profile otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. i am saying that the vast majority of people with money to invest couldn't risk the potential losses that you are exposed to. they can still invest in china but it would account for a smaller proportion of their portfolio. it may work for you but you were originally saying that you just wanted this one more win and you wouldn't need to take any significant risk anymore - that is not investing.

Please tell me what is a typical minimum timeframe for you to recommend a particular fund ? How often is the fund selection reviewed ? Is the client expected to make an appointment with you if he thinks he might fund switch or can he do it himself ?

It is not investment in China which is irresponsible. It is the intending to stick with it for several years no matter what which is irresponsible. It is unlikely, but i could just switch out of China tommorow.

dipsomaniac wrote: »

trail commission that an ifa is paid is for ongoing service and is based on the value of the investment.

Yes but you still get trail commision no matter what - just less if performance is not good.

dipsomaniac

Because after I have made 50% i wont really want any more dosh.

i think it all boils down to the comment you made above and the best approach to investing. You seem to be putting all of your eggs in one basket (china) and banking on a 50% return before the olympics next year. i am simply saying that that is not investing but speculating/gambling.

i am always on the end of the phone to my clients and review their portfolios at least annually to rebalance and make any changes.

wombat42_2

dipsomaniac wrote: »

i think it all boils down to the comment you made above and the best approach to investing. You seem to be putting all of your eggs in one basket (china) and banking on a 50% return before the olympics next year. i am simply saying that that is not investing but speculating/gambling.

Since making that comment I have realised that it is silly switching entirely to ICICI, a corporate bond or a cautious managed fund so I am happy at any strategic point (probably sometime between tommorrow and the Olympics 2008) to switch to a UK equity income fund and possibly keep it there for another 10 years.

wombat42_2

dipsomaniac wrote: »

i think it all boils down to the comment you made above and the best approach to investing. You seem to be putting all of your eggs in one basket (china) and banking on a 50% return before the olympics next year. i am simply saying that that is not investing but speculating/gambling.

Since making that comment I have realised that it is silly switching entirely to ICICI, a corporate bond or a cautious managed fund so I am happy at any strategic point (probably sometime between tommorrow and the Olympics 2008) to switch to a UK equity income fund and possibly keep it there for another 10 years.

purch

possibly keep it there for another 10 years

Why ?

Why UK Equity Income ??

Why Ten Years ??

Why not a European Equity Income Fund, or a U.S. Equity Income Fund ??

Why not 8 years, or 12 years ??

wombat42_2

purch wrote: »

Why ?

Why UK Equity Income ??

Why Ten Years ??

Why not a European Equity Income Fund, or a U.S. Equity Income Fund ??

Why not 8 years, or 12 years ??

Jesus - Dont you guys ever give up :mad:

10 years because I plan to retire in 10 years. I used the work "possibly" as i could always fund switch at any point. As regards "Why UK Equity Income" why anything.

dipsomaniac

thanks for a good debate. as i said earlier i do wish you well. provide a profit/loss account this time in 5 years.

EdInvestor

Are you familiar with the concept of "Momentum investing" wombat? Since you have the time and energy to devote to moving money regularly (I am far too lazy to do this myself) the idea might be one you could investigate.

It basically just involves watching the table of rising funds and then moving into a sector when it starts to get popular, and moving out of it when the funds drop of the top performers list - a kind of 'go with the flow" approach.

You are in the right sector at the moment more or less, though a bit of diversification into other Asian/emerging markets might achieve the same result but reduce your risk.

Try to find a broker/fund supermarket that doesn't charge for switches if you like this strategy.

http://www.trustnet.com/ut/