What will a financial adviser do for me?

mollycat

Jon_W wrote: »

Thanks, I'll have a look at that!! :beer:

To get started you don't need a course.

You don't need an economics GCSE like you wondered earlier in the thread, and you do not need to find an alternative book to Smarter Investing.

You do not even need to persevere with Smarter Investing

I came late(r) in life to investing; and am no expert, never will be.

I read numerous threads on this board, the insights and information you can glean from some posters is absolutely priceless, much more helpful than anything else.

Numerous helpful blogs on internet; Monevator, DIY Income Investor, The Escape Artist, etc, etc

TBH, it's not difficult to DIY, (as long as you understand the implications of that choice) and not a lot of downside to just getting started with the proviso that you are not investing massive sums.

I'm going on here basically because I'm sensing a "paralysis by analysis" situation, which is a shame.

Sounds like you're itching to get started; so, get the basics clear in your head and go for it.

And that's all I have to say

mollycat

Jon_W wrote: »

Sorry Molly, I missed that point. Thanks, just looking at it now. On the first page is 'what is a share?' I feel this is my level! ;)

Cross posting!!

Good start, keep at it!

Before you know it you will have opened an account on a platform, decided on an asset allocation, and be buying investments....just like we all started off doing.

Exciting times!

Malthusian

This is why books on investing are a complete waste of time, regardless of your level of expertise.

If I buy a gadget or domestic appliance, like a washing machine, it will usually come with a two-page "Getting Started" pamphlet which contains enough information to enable me to get the thing working. There will also be a 12-page manual with more detailed information about the various settings. If I want to become an expert in how the appliance works and be able to repair it myself I might buy a Haynes manual or equivalent with 200 pages of technical specifications, but that will only be of interest to a minority which is why it's sold separately.

Someone who wants to know how to DIY-invest should be reading the two-page Getting Started manual first which would cover how to buy an index-tracking multi-asset fund, a brief description of how it works, how it can be expected to behave (volatility) and what this achieves (returns). And a few warnings on what not to do. Once they are happy with that they may want to read the 12-page manual on asset allocation, performance and active v passive. Only a small minority need the full textbook.

Unfortunately, since you can't charge people £10 for a 2-page "Getting Started" pamphlet, beginners are bamboozled into buying the full Haynes manual, with a totally irrelevant history of the stockmarket over 200 years, endless pages on how deriviatives and options work and twee folksy anecdotes in order to pad it out to 200+ pages.

badger09

Snakey wrote: »

Intriguing. I could definitely do with a crash course. But I note that "[t]he course is up-to-date and covers the current reforms to UK pensions due to be rolled out in 2015..." - I don't want to waste my time on out-of-date legislation.

Have you done this course? Is it any good? (Is it just the blurb that hasn't been updated, or is the whole course 3-4 years old?) What do you spend your three hours a week doing - is it reading, or watching somebody talk, or what?

IIRC Colsten (a well informed regular poster) did it a couple of years ago and was quite complimentary about it.

Linton

Malthusian wrote: »

This is why books on investing are a complete waste of time, regardless of your level of expertise.

If I buy a gadget or domestic appliance, like a washing machine, it will usually come with a two-page "Getting Started" pamphlet which contains enough information to enable me to get the thing working. There will also be a 12-page manual with more detailed information about the various settings. If I want to become an expert in how the appliance works and be able to repair it myself I might buy a Haynes manual or equivalent with 200 pages of technical specifications, but that will only be of interest to a minority which is why it's sold separately.

Someone who wants to know how to DIY-invest should be reading the two-page Getting Started manual first which would cover how to buy an index-tracking multi-asset fund, a brief description of how it works, how it can be expected to behave (volatility) and what this achieves (returns). And a few warnings on what not to do. Once they are happy with that they may want to read the 12-page manual on asset allocation, performance and active v passive. Only a small minority need the full textbook.

Unfortunately, since you can't charge people £10 for a 2-page "Getting Started" pamphlet, beginners are bamboozled into buying the full Haynes manual, with a totally irrelevant history of the stockmarket over 200 years, endless pages on how deriviatives and options work and twee folksy anecdotes in order to pad it out to 200+ pages.

Sorry I cant accept that analogy.....

When people buy a washing machine they have known from childhood what clothes are, that they need washing and why, that water and soap are essential to the process, the dangers of using over hot water etc etc. People starting investing dont necessarily have this level of basic knowledge.

So there is a choice. You can blindly use a predefined packaged approach with no understanding of what it does, why/if it works and whether it is actually appropriate for your needs. You can educate yourself in how the overall system works and make your own decisions on the basis of knowledge and understanding. Or you can rely on someone else to do it for you. The second option seems most sensible to me for anyone seriously intending to invest over decades.

The problem is how to do it. There is a lot to be gained from general reading, from popular books like the "The undercover economist", from "dummies guides" and similar. My advice is is to read everything except for books with an agenda to sell, especially those that guarantee riches. Or at least ignore them until you have the tools to properly assess their claims.

Jon_W

Malthusian wrote: »

This is why books on investing are a complete waste of time, regardless of your level of expertise.

If I buy a gadget or domestic appliance, like a washing machine, it will usually come with a two-page "Getting Started" pamphlet which contains enough information to enable me to get the thing working. There will also be a 12-page manual with more detailed information about the various settings. If I want to become an expert in how the appliance works and be able to repair it myself I might buy a Haynes manual or equivalent with 200 pages of technical specifications, but that will only be of interest to a minority which is why it's sold separately.

Someone who wants to know how to DIY-invest should be reading the two-page Getting Started manual first which would cover how to buy an index-tracking multi-asset fund, a brief description of how it works, how it can be expected to behave (volatility) and what this achieves (returns). And a few warnings on what not to do. Once they are happy with that they may want to read the 12-page manual on asset allocation, performance and active v passive. Only a small minority need the full textbook.

Unfortunately, since you can't charge people £10 for a 2-page "Getting Started" pamphlet, beginners are bamboozled into buying the full Haynes manual, with a totally irrelevant history of the stockmarket over 200 years, endless pages on how deriviatives and options work and twee folksy anecdotes in order to pad it out to 200+ pages.

I couldn't agree more. As one poster mentioned above I am discussing all this and still none-the-wiser as to actually buy into a fund.

I am onto Investing Demystified by Lars Kroijer who recommends holding your equities in a global tracker fund which invests i) in each country in proportion to its % value of global equity - so if the UK has 5% of the world's equity value your fund has 5% of investments in the UK; and, ii) in each company within each country according to its market cap.

This would suit me as I'd get broad exposure (as also recommended by Tim Hale) through one fund. I'm lazy like that. Though the % exposure to developed, emerging, etc markets Hale recommends wouldn't be achieved.

I have also just found out about Lifetime ISAs. I am considering these as a compliment/alternative to equity index trackers and bind tracker funds.

jimjames

Jon_W wrote: »

I have also just found out about Lifetime ISAs. I am considering these as a compliment/alternative to equity index trackers and bind tracker funds.

You shouldn't be. One is a tax wrapper (LISA) and the others are investment products. The LISA can contain tracker funds but is not an investment itself.

justme111

I do not envy teachers.ISA being not an investment but the way in which investments are held has been written like 6 times in this thread. Then one says he considers ISA as an alternative to trackers and funds.:p

dunstonh

I have also just found out about Lifetime ISAs. I am considering these as a compliment/alternative to equity index trackers and bind tracker funds.

Car and petrol again.
LISA is a tax wrapper. Not an invesment
Trackers are not a tax wrapper. They are investments.
You can put trackers in a tax wrapper but not tax wrappers into trackers.

This would suit me as I'd get broad exposure (as also recommended by Tim Hale) through one fund. I'm lazy like that. Though the % exposure to developed, emerging, etc markets Hale recommends wouldn't be achieved.

Multi-asset fund does seem most suitable. Forget what Tim Hale says. You will get exposure at suitable allocations with multi-asset funds.

Jon_W

justme111 wrote: »

I do not envy teachers.ISA being not an investment but the way in which investments are held has been written like 6 times in this thread. Then one says he considers ISA as an alternative to trackers and funds.:p

There's no need to be disparaging. Some of us haven't got a clue and don't know where to start. It's fine saying to me that it is a tax wrapper not an investment but if I don't know what tax wrapper means and why that's different to an investment, I'm no further on.

There are doubtless things I have knowledge about that I could bury you on and be disparaging about into the bargain. To impugn my whole intelligence from (vast) ignorance in one area is a bit stupid, really.

So I put £4k in a year for 10 years, I end up with £50k. That's £10k risk-free. So I am seeing them as a safe, defensive place to get modest gains. Bonds, by all accounts, aren't paying much. Due ti inflation, depending on duration, some are giving negative yields. So I was wondering whether this could augment or replace.

The problem is that I can't access the money until I am 60. I also don't have very long left to contribute as there's not that long left until I am 50, when you can contribute no more. So the money will just sit there idly in the ISA earning interest at whatever rate instead of working and gaining.