bbb

BritishInvestor

bostonerimus wrote: »

So why not do what Vanguard does and just put limits on trading. I think the "advisor wall" is to keep an air of exclusivity and to keep the admin overhead down by not having to deal directly with the retail investor.

Vanguard proactively contact their clients and reassure them during times of market volatility? Not seen this offering yet - can you please send a link?

BritishInvestor

jamesd wrote: »

You also have sufficient money to split any money management between two advisers.

Why would you pay one adviser to "manage your money" let alone two? It's a commodity offering - find a financial planner and focus on the genuine added value.

BritishInvestor

Deleted_User wrote: »

Call me a sceptic. Guess what happens to non-performing funds? They don’t attract money. Then they are shut down. Then they can claim that the surviving funds “outperform”.

In the real world we know for a fact that the vast majority of actively managed funds underperform.

Theirs aren't active funds

BritishInvestor

jamesd wrote: »

Given that for UK investors active funds outperform passive by 0.65% a year on average that'd still make active preferable.

It's worth looking more closely because as might be expected the passives did better on average for the US, so passive US and active elsewhere might be sensible.

How on earth can the average active fund outperform the market - they are the market?

I'm not sure where active might make sense but open to suggestions.....

Thrugelmir

MoneyGeoff wrote: »

It's US data but even if you reduce the growth it still looks easily doable.

What's the underlying assumptions though? 30 year US Treasuries currently only offer 2.95%. Relying on equities to perform to a level to fulfill the shortfall is somewhat optimistic.

PS. I'm ignoring currency fluctuations.

30 year UK Gilts only offer 1.49% by the way. Less than both the rates of CPI and RPI. Suggesting that institutional investors have broader concerns.

jamesd

BritishInvestor wrote: »

Why would you pay one adviser to "manage your money" let alone two? It's a commodity offering - find a financial planner and focus on the genuine added value.

Advisers aren't free of risk and can have different styles and investment briefs from the client.

jamesd

BritishInvestor wrote: »

How on earth can the average active fund outperform the market - they are the market?

What they beat was the passive funds, not necessarily the market.

Even combined the active and passive funds weren't the whole market because the work was only looking at funds normally available to UK investors. That's a tiny percentage of the US market cap and not a big cut of most of the rest.

BritishInvestor wrote: »

I'm not sure where active might make sense but open to suggestions.....

If you look at the bit of the FCA data I highlighted in the post I linked to, passive for the US (at least large cap, not sure it'll apply to small and micro) and global with circa 55% US weighting. Active for the rest. For equities. For fixed interest the picture is different.

Thrugelmir

BritishInvestor wrote: »

How on earth can the average active fund outperform the market - they are the market?

I'm not sure where active might make sense but open to suggestions.....

Never forget that markets consist of living breathing companies that rise and wane, sometimes turning to dust. Active fund managers can dump dog stocks earlier. Passive fund managers have little option other than to maintain a weighting. If that's what fund mandate dictates.

Clive_Woody

BritishInvestor wrote: »

I agree, but it should happen right after the end of the process, and is the least important part.

That's a matter of opinion.

For me, that would be a very important part, I would not be comfortable with my money being invested in something I did not understand....no matter how convincing the sales pitch and how grand the claims

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Never forget that markets consist of living breathing companies that rise and wane, sometimes turning to dust. Active fund managers can dump dog stocks earlier. Passive fund managers have little option other than to maintain a weighting. If that's what fund mandate dictates.

Weighting in passive funds reflects that “dog stocks” are underperforming.