All in Vanguard?

bundoran

bobhopeful wrote: »

Isn't the problem for investors that with Beaufort Securities it was confirmed that ring-fencing does not mean protected.

The law allows the Administrators to use ring-fenced client assets to pay their sometimes substantial costs..

In the case of beaufort the FCA says the following:

"Why are costs being deducted from the ring-fenced client money and assets?

The administrators have to reconcile the money and assets held by BACSL in accordance with the legislation before being able to return these client assets to their owners. The legislation, in particular Rule 135 of The Investment Bank Special Administration Rules 2011, provides for the costs of distributions of client assets to be paid for out of the assets themselves. All costs incurred by the administrators will be subject to approval as set out in insolvency legislation and ultimately are subject to jurisdiction of the Court. A creditors committee has been appointed who represent the BACSL clients and who will consider and if appropriate approve PricewaterhouseCoopers' (PwC!!!8217;s) costs."

In any normal insolvency then the client book would simply be sold to another provider and the assets wouldn't need to be distributed - and it is only the costs of distribution of the assets which can be taken from the assets. Money owed to creditors of the business doesn't fall within that definition.

Dunstonh's posting explains why the Beaufort situation differs in cost and assets held from ordinary retail platforms. There also appears to be a shortfall in the assets held, and the business simply isn't saleable as an ongoing concern.

You can't extrapolate from Beaufort to conclude that ringfencing doesn't work with ordinary mainstream providers.

bobhopeful

Thank you dunstonh and bundoran. That is reassuring.

cogito

Alexland wrote: »

For most people it would be a lot cheaper to pay the fund management fee than incur all the trade costs in trying to replicate the portfolio's positioning and weightings which would change over time.
Alex

Precisely. And I would also need to change my SIPP provider which I prefer not to do as it was such a pain in the proverbial last time I did it.

Linton

bobhopeful wrote: »

Isn't the problem for investors that with Beaufort Securities it was confirmed that ring-fencing does not mean protected.

The law allows the Administrators to use ring-fenced client assets to pay their sometimes substantial costs..

I dont believe its as simple as that - Beaufort and H-L/BestInvest etc etc arent equivalent. AIUI Beaufort customers werent invested in easily tradable funds/shares but in "opportunities" such as loans to investment companies or similar dubious investments that may or may not pay out. The administrators needed the staff to continue to work to recover as much of the capital as possible. Staff cost money. It seems to me to be reasonable that the investors pay the costs of recovering their money, in the same way as they could have to pay charges to sell off funds/shares, though such charges would be much lower.

System

cogito wrote: »

Terry Smith, Nick Train and two or three others. want to buy.

What are the figures for their long term gains? Over 30 years is it any better than say just investing in an entire index such as S&P 500 which has grown by 1000% over the last 30 year period?

A couple of months ago things were looking very bleak for them. Sage software's value tanked and Terry Smith's fund was the largest single investor in Sage. 5.8% of Nick Trains fund was in Sage.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/sage-slump-knocks-terry-smith-and-nick-train/a1110206

eskbanker

bobhopeful wrote: »

Thank you dunstonh and bundoran. That is reassuring.

Perhaps the relatively happy ending of the Beaufort saga as covered on this thread will also be reassuring, in that, as the dust starts to settle, it looks like fewer than ten retail investors will lose anything at all, thanks to the way in which the various parties have agreed that FSCS will come into play.

Many a slip twixt cup and lip and all that but it looks like it won't be the wreckage it initially appeared to be....

Prism

Tarambor wrote: »

What are the figures for their long term gains? Over 30 years is it any better than say just investing in an entire index such as S&P 500 which has grown by 1000% over the last 30 year period?

A couple of months ago things were looking very bleak for them. Sage software's value tanked and Terry Smith's fund was the largest single investor in Sage. 5.8% of Nick Trains fund was in Sage.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/sage-slump-knocks-terry-smith-and-nick-train/a1110206

Its hard to get long term figures for them. Lindsell Train has been going since april 2000. Nick Train has made 631% since then. The S&P with dividends reinvested has made 164% in that same time period. He was investing all through the 90's but I'm not sure if there are any stats for him at that time.

Fundsmith has only been going for about 8 years

Zola.

I have been tempted to jump on the FundSmith band wagon, the gains have been epic. But then my passive mind says 'no, not until you have built up enough of a bank roll my boy'

bostonerimus

Zola. wrote: »

I have been tempted to jump on the FundSmith band wagon, the gains have been epic. But then my passive mind says 'no, not until you have built up enough of a bank roll my boy'

Avoid buying just because something is doing well. I would never buy Fundsmith because I think 30 holdings is too narrow.....and I wouldn't pay the fees either. Now I might well miss out on a great fund, but there are plenty of others that I've missed, both good and bad, and I'm happy that my current portfolio is built on a solid foundation and works well enough for me.

A_T

Zola. wrote: »

I have been tempted to jump on the FundSmith band wagon, the gains have been epic. But then my passive mind says 'no, not until you have built up enough of a bank roll my boy'

It's less than 8 years old and has only experienced a bull market. Over 20 years I would not expect it to beat a global tracker.