Excessive or reasonable charges for managed SIPP?

Prism

zagfles wrote: »

Ah so you're assuming other people made the same bad decisions as you? Some probably did. Others might be well up. We don't all boast about our performance any more than we all tell the world how badly we've done.

Is that a serious question? I was down last year and you think I made bad decisions? What happened last year is almost irrelevant to an investing timescale. And yet we get many posts here (and elsewhere) worrying about short term performance.

So as someone whose performance was well below par you now claim to be able to judge that HL's top 10 are "terrible"?

Absolutely my opinion. For an average investor in HL they are not the way to go - yet clearly people think they are being the most popular.

What do you think about this poster's fund selection, he has an IFA: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5992633/thoughts-ahead-of-first-annual-sipp-review

I have absolutely no idea since I have no idea what risk level the poster is after (or has been recommended). Neither does anyone else except the poster and their IFA

zagfles

Prism wrote: »

Is that a serious question? I was down last year and you think I made bad decisions? What happened last year is almost irrelevant to an investing timescale. And yet we get many posts here (and elsewhere) worrying about short term performance.

:rotfl:I was taking the p out of your point!

Absolutely my opinion. For an average investor in HL they are not the way to go - yet clearly people think they are being the most popular.

Why, how do know what the "way to go is" for the average investor?

I have absolutely no idea since I have no idea what risk level the poster is after (or has been recommended). Neither does anyone else except the poster and their IFA

Try reading the post then. He mentions his risk stance. He gives his situtaion and objectives, at least an outline. There's enough there to get a good idea, why do you think he posted?

Anyway, you've judged the HL funds for the "average investor", without defining the average investor. Now judge those funds on the same basis if you want. If you think you know better what an "average investor" is than someone who describes their current situation and outline objectives.

Otherwise it just looks like a pop at HL.

Prism

zagfles wrote: »

:Try reading the post then. He mentions his risk stance. He gives his situtaion and objectives, at least an outline. There's enough there to get a good idea, why do you think he posted?

I did read the post but I know nothing about those funds except for VLS40. A couple of them look like fund of funds which I am not keen on. Seems a bit lazy. But honestly, I couldn't say without more research. The only question really is are those funds a better for for the poster than the ones they would otherwise have picked for themselves.

Otherwise it just looks like a pop at HL.

Not having a pop at HL at all. Why would I? They didn't construct that list - its simply a list of the most popular funds that real investors are using. YouInvest has a similar list. All it tells me is that the most popular recent buys from DIY investors are mostly high risk, often higher cost funds. I am just not convinced that such high risk represents the average investor.

zagfles

Prism wrote: »

Not having a pop at HL at all. Why would I? They didn't construct that list - its simply a list of the most popular funds that real investors are using.

OK, at HL investors then. We constantly get told on here how HL investors are gulllible fools who get sucked in by marketing, who are paying over the odds, who don't know what they're doing. By both IFAs and religiously passive/low cost "DIY" investors.

Well I'm an HL investor. I'm paying far less then I would if I used any IFA for my portfolio, and it's performed better than even IFAs on here have boasted about. Through good times and bad.

YouInvest has a similar list. All it tells me is that the most popular recent buys from DIY investors are mostly high risk, often higher cost funds. I am just not convinced that such high risk represents the average investor.

What, like the two L&G trackers that have charges of 0.06% and 0.08? Like the Lindsell Train funds at around 0.5% which is cheap for actively managed funds and has beaten the market for many years? (yes it's higher risk, but it's not expensive)
Or do you like dunston just want to selecively pick 2 or 3 which suit your argument so you can show how stupid HL investors are?

dunstonh

Or do you like dunston just want to selecively pick 2 or 3 which suit your argument so you can show how stupid HL investors are?

Are you not selectively picking 2 tracker funds to make your argument?

We constantly get told on here how HL investors are gulllible fools who get sucked in by marketing, who are paying over the odds, who don't know what they're doing. By both IFAs and religiously passive/low cost "DIY" investors.

I have seen no such posts by the IFAs or the DIY investors.

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User wrote: »

2. Passive investment is right for the vast majority of people, except those who are willing to spend a huge amount of time on research and have unusual psychological make up

Once the majority of the share liquidity in a market is passively tracked. Who is going to set the correct price of the underlying securities that constitute the index?

beamyup

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Once the majority of the share liquidity in a market is passively tracked. Who is going to set the correct price of the underlying securities that constitute the index?

We will soon find out.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Once the majority of the share liquidity in a market is passively tracked. Who is going to set the correct price of the underlying securities that constitute the index?

At some point arbitrage will become profitable. This point is predicted to occur at 90% Passive (if I recall correctly). I doubt that point will be reached. Even ETF investors often go for “factor” options and active or industry-specific ETFs are becoming popular. Roboadvisors (another marketing gimmick) are popular with millennials. All of these are active strategies

Linton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Once the majority of the share liquidity in a market is passively tracked. Who is going to set the correct price of the underlying securities that constitute the index?

The active funds and investors. Once the price of a share gets significantly out of line with its fundamentals the active funds can make massive gains. For example a successful cash generative company increasing its dividends year on year without increasing its price becomes a highly inviting investment opportunity purely for the income. But then the price goes up as the market is illiquid so even more gains , even better if you can get in when the company concerned is somewhere near the top of a Small/Medium company index. Similarly, or conversely, with shorting a failing company.

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

Are you not selectively picking 2 tracker funds to make your argument?

I'm not making any argument about how good or bad HL's top 10 is. I'm responding to those who say how bad it is by selectively picking the 2 most expensive ones, and ignoring the very cheap trackers, and the relatively cheap managed funds in that top 10. To which I've had no answer. But I don't expect to.

I have seen no such posts by the IFAs or the DIY investors.

:rotfl:it's usually from you! Like post 4 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5990954/new-hl-fund-1

"Some will fall for it". Yeah I will. I don't care what you think of my investment decisions, you can sneer all you like. I did pretty well out of the previous HL Select fund.

I know HL, Virgin, Vanguard etc all annoy you by making it so easy to cut out the middleman, but at least try to be objective in your posts.