Help Please

dunstonh

slinkydonkey wrote: »

Also what does "Entirely in Drawdown" and " Partially in Drawdown" and "Not in Drawdown" mean? thanks in Advance

There are not generic words. So, this must be a provider specific way of explaining it.

Entirely in drawdown would be fully crystallised.
Not in drawdown would be fully uncrystallised
partially in drawdown would be part crystallised, part uncrystallised.

LHW99

There are not generic words. So, this must be a provider specific way of explaining it.

But as you are only 40 OP, you wouldn't be doing any of them just yet.

jonnygee2

In general, I agree with your advisor that managed funds are undesirable. In fact, I think fund management is just a huge scam, there is sustained evidence that fund managers (despite the humungous sums they get paid) are almost all unable to beat the market.

http://www.aei.org/publication/more-evidence-that-its-very-hard-to-beat-the-market-over-time-95-of-financial-professionals-cant-do-it/ .

I only use index linked funds, they have no fund charge and are actually more likely to make better returns (especially when you consider the 0.7% or so fund charge you are losing in a managed fund).

Fund charges are an important but often overlooked part of the calculations. A 0.7% fund charge would probably cost me about 80k over the life of my pension.

dunstonh

In general, I agree with your advisor that managed funds are undesirable. In fact, I think fund management is just a huge scam, there is sustained evidence that fund managers (despite the humungous sums they get paid) are almost all unable to beat the market.

Trackers are generally just below mid table in discrete periods. That means half the funds are above and half below. So, clearly, they are being beaten. It's not as straightforward to eliminate all managed like that. When you start filtering funds down you can eliminate most managed funds but there is a core of funds in some areas that do add value.

Much of the anti-managed coverage comes from the US where it is nearly impossible for a managed fund to do better. The US is not alone, Many countries have 90% plus not beating passive. The UK is one fo the few markets that does buck that trend and have more decent managed funds than most.
The key is knowing enough and the average DIY investor wont have that knowledge or ability. So, they may as well go multi-asset passive underlying.

A 0.7% fund charge would probably cost me about 80k over the life of my pension.

Most of which is payable in future years when inflation means £70k doesnt have the spending power of today. It always sounds impressive when a value over a term is written as if it had the spending power of today.