Cheapest platform for stocks and shares ISA

Tom99

Economic wrote: »

How is this the other extreme? Having a global portfolio allocation based on the market capitalisation of countries makes perfect sense. Having an arbitrary allocation makes little sense.

I am not sure that investing 10x as much in US stocks v UK stocks just because there is 10x as much US stock on offer makes perfect sense.

A_T

To answer the OP's question it's Trading 212. No platform fee and no fees for trading.

eskbanker

Tom99 wrote: »

I am not sure that investing 10x as much in US stocks v UK stocks just because there is 10x as much US stock on offer makes perfect sense.

But to take that to its logical conclusion, if you object to the principle of cap-weighting then you wouldn't use any trackers in the first place....

MarkBargain

DrSyn wrote: »

Before you start to make any changes, I suggest you take a look at the following :-

http://www.kroijer.com/

Thanks, I watched those with interest. He advocates a global tracker with the lowest charges, which makes sense, and compares 0.5% fees on a tracker to 2% on a managed fund (I suppose for ease, although those are high).

On iWeb the cheapest funds are the Fidelity/HSBC USA/UK funds with a charge of 0.06% with global funds starting at 0.12%, double the price, but still cheap and spreads the risk.

I do have an actively managed fund (Baillie Gifford Positive Change), and I pay them 0.62% to focus my money on ethical investments which (hopefully) do some good in the world.

green_man

Tom99 wrote: »

Whilst having 100% in the UK may not be ideal, swapping to just a global tracker probably puts 60% in the US and say 6% in the UK, so the other extreme.
You could use a combination of a UK fund and a world ex-uk fund and make your own decision on the UK/world balance.

I agree with this - mostly.

It does not seem a sensible approach to put all your money in a UK tracker (do we know this is the full extent of the OPs investments?). However the UK has underperformed for a number of years and the US has over performed on this particular cycle, the OP has missed this US bull run and switching now to 60% US could end up being much worse in the short/medium term.

I might move some out and certainly put any new money in a Global fund (or mixed asset fund depending on timeframe).

Alexland

MarkBargain wrote: »

I do have an actively managed fund (Baillie Gifford Positive Change), and I pay them 0.62% to focus my money on ethical investments which (hopefully) do some good in the world.

Give a fund manager £175 and he will feed for one day.

Buy units of his 0.62% ethical fund and you will feed him for a lifetime.

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

Alex.

Tom99

eskbanker wrote: »

But to take that to its logical conclusion, if you object to the principle of cap-weighting then you wouldn't use any trackers in the first place....

You can use a UK tracker(s) plus a world ex-UK tracker to choose your own balance, you don't have to abandon trackers altogether just because you don't like the mix an all in one global tracker would give you.

eskbanker

Tom99 wrote: »

You can use a UK tracker(s) plus a world ex-UK tracker to choose your own balance, you don't have to abandon trackers altogether just because you don't like the mix an all in one global tracker would give you.

Well yes, there is obviously an argument that two trackers are better than one if you feel that none of the single ones adequately fit your desired allocation, but if your objection to a global tracker is that it's 60% US, you'd still be left with the US heavily dominating your ex-UK tracker by virtue of the cap weighting, i.e. your selective approach would only serve to artificially inflate the UK component rather than adjusting the (relative) proportions of the others.

Hence I was making the point that arguing that n+1 trackers are better than n would ultimately lead to not using them at all, although to be fair I'd accept the logic of using something like 10-15 to cover the main markets in chosen proportions, as advocated by some of the IFAs who post on here....

MarkBargain

Alexland wrote: »

Give a fund manager £175 and he will feed for one day.

Buy units of his 0.62% ethical fund and you will feed him for a lifetime.

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

Alex.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The 0.62% seems a fair price to me for researching the market and investing in companies which "can deliver positive change in one of four areas: Social inclusion and Education, Environment and Resource Needs, Healthcare and Quality of Life; and Base of the Pyramid (addressing the needs of the world’s poorest populations)."

I suppose the argument could validly be made that an ethical investor would be better to go for the low cost tracker, make more money (even if some may be in oil companies, smoking or arms), then use it for positive good with charities etc.[/FONT]

Thrugelmir

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Logical ..... but still terrible. :eek:
I have shares amd funds that i think stand a good chance of outperforming global, UK or indeed my general allocation. Its still a terrible idea for me to lump everything in to just one of those, because I recognize that I might be wrong.

If I dont recognise that concept, then that doesn't make it a good idea to do it.

Fortune favours the contrarian investor. If you are buying the same stocks as everybody else. Then logically you'll end overpaying for them based on the underlying fundamental value. As money directed at them will simply drive the price higher. Investment fads are cyclical.