Jupiter "distressed"

quirkydeptless

coyrls wrote: »

Please give an example where HL effectively pay you to hold a fund.

Net ongoing charge: -0.20%...

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/l/lf-prudential-dynamic-focused-20-55-p-accumulation-inclusive

Dirrty...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rg3sAb8Id8

Mr.Saver

quirkydeptless wrote: »

Net ongoing charge: -0.20%...

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/l/lf-prudential-dynamic-focused-20-55-p-accumulation-inclusive

Dirrty...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rg3sAb8Id8

Interesting, I haven't seen anything like this before. I wonder for how long can this last, won't be very long if they don't have other ways to make more money.

londoninvestor

Mr.Saver wrote: »

Interesting, I haven't seen anything like this before. I wonder for how long can this last, won't be very long if they don't have other ways to make more money.

Note that this Prudential fund is a fund of funds - it will be paying the management charges of the underlying fund holdings, and this isn't included in the quoted ongoing charge of 0.50%.

The largest holding (about 23%ish) is M&G Strategic Corporate Bond Fund Sterling A Acc, which has an ongoing charge of 1.16%.

Lucky for M&G. Or perhaps we should say, lucky for M&G's owners, namely (checks notes) Prudential.

So there's a bit of smoke and mirrors here, and Pru are overall making more from this than it would first appear.

BananaRepublic

Alexland wrote: »

I do agree it's hard to see Jupiter as a relevant fund manager these days.

Still there is no reason to suspect fraud and the remaining customer business is valuable enough that the fund manager (or in worst case their administrators) would have no problem finding a new home for the assets. In these situations there is often a merger with another fund manager.

Alex

I’m more than happy with the Jupiter European fund.

Alexland

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I’m more than happy with the Jupiter European fund.

But isn't that the problem with managers like Jupiter? They have many funds so by chance one will have been doing well recently and then they can feature it's amazing recent past performance on those train platform posters?

Alex

BananaRepublic

Alexland wrote: »

But isn't that the problem with managers like Jupiter? They have many funds so by chance one will have been doing well recently and then they can feature it's amazing recent past performance on those train platform posters?

Alex

I suggest you do your research before commenting.

bowlhead99

Alexland wrote: »

But isn't that the problem with managers like Jupiter? They have many funds so by chance one will have been doing well recently and then they can feature it's amazing recent past performance on those train platform posters?

If you have a small boutique fund management operation you will likely criticize your larger rivals who have a broad range of products by saying that the lack of focus will lead to worse performance even if from time to time they get lucky and do well in a performance table. You would say you were supported by discerning customers who are sophisticated enough to not need a 'one stop shop' for every fund under the sun.

If you have a larger fund management operation you will criticize your smaller specialist rivals and say that their non-diversified income stream and lack of resources will inherently lead to a higher cost operation, leading to higher costs (or lower quality for the same cost) when running a niche fund. It's not good to be a one-trick pony during a part of an economic cycle where that trick isn't doing well. Instead, providing a range of fund types (including multi-asset) is what the market actually wants and well-resourced managers with financial strength are well placed to deliver that, and shouldn't be criticised for doing so.

If you say "isn't the problem with X: Y", then I'm sure the rival operators A who have their own problems B, will be happy to hear you come out and say that rather than instead espousing the positives of X's approach or the negatives of A's approach. The reality is that all business models have pros and cons which will both positively and adversely affect both the operator of the model, and their customers.

Alexland

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I suggest you do your research before commenting.

I stand around at cold train stations regularly looking at the financial services posters. More recently there have been less fund managers and more crypto, CFD and wealth managers. What is it about this concept of fund manager adverts always highlighting their most successful or trendy funds that you disagree with?

Alex

BananaRepublic

Alexland wrote: »

I stand around at cold train stations regularly looking at the financial services posters. More recently there have been less fund managers and more crypto, CFD and wealth managers. What is it about this concept of fund manager adverts always highlighting their most successful or trendy funds that you disagree with?

Alex

I was suggesting that you might want to look at the fund I mentioned before making a comment, that’s all. It’s possible some of their other funds are not so impressive, I’ve not actually looked at their records, which is why I haven’t commented on them. Don’t get me started on digital so-called currencies.

Oh, and as pastimes go, yours is one of the more eccentric that I have heard about. Each to their own.

masonic

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Oh, and as pastimes go, yours is one of the more eccentric that I have heard about. Each to their own.

Commuting is eccentric?