Lindsell Train Global: what the hell is going on here?

[Deleted User]

To the above two posts - completely agree but every advantage the individual now has has been forced on the financial services in the UK by the internet.
Otherwise, you would be buying at huge spreads, eye watering brokerage fees etc.
But the financial services industry - as evidenced on this forum - still feel entitled.
I believe the UK financial services industry would survive about a day in America.

kinger101

ZingPowZing wrote: »

After a good year on the stock markets, some on the forum are congratulating themselves for choosing a good performing fund. 1.01 the same cohort will blame their fund-managers in a downturn.
And that 85% explains the attraction of funds.

You've managed to pick a couple of stocks that have done well in a rising market. You sound too naive to have invested through a downturn. Who will you blame if you extremely limited portfolio doesn't fare so well at the next crash? Bill Gates? You seem oblivious to the risks you're taking.

The attraction in funds in mainly in pooling risk through diversification, at a low cost. Good performance is relative. But it seems you're not averse to slapping yourself on the back when times are good.

[Deleted User]

kinger101 wrote: »

it seems you're not averse to slapping yourself on the back when times are good.

Thought I had reined myself in in that regard but, if kinger has evidence: post it below.

[Deleted User]

Or, if anyone else has a link, help out kinger101

Does he work in the financial services industry?

Audaxer

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Really if you are going to DIY properly and get a handle on what you are holding, it is good to do your own research into the manager's preferences, habits and style, understand what he has held over time and what commentary he has given on the whys and wherefores, and take a look at what he holds and how it could develop, beyond the top-10 holdings shown on a factsheet. What are some of the risks facing the major holdings, and how does the mix of industries and geographies fit with your wider portfolio.

I agree that if DIYing you should do your research. I didn't think that in-depth level of research was necessary when buying funds, but maybe some DIY investors do have the knowledge and experience to look in detail at the holdings and how the fund could develop over time, and assess the risks facing major holdings.

[Deleted User]

Audaxer wrote: »

I agree that if DIYing you should do your research. I didn't think that in-depth level of research was necessary when buying funds, but maybe some DIY investors do have the knowledge and experience to look in detail at the holdings and how the fund could develop over time, and assess the risks facing major holdings.

Sure.Loads of people here to tell you why something happened
Hardly anyone to say why anything would happen.

Rollinghome

Aminatidi wrote: »

Personally I've only been doing this for around 2 years.

It staggers and intrigues me how good I think we have it now compared to how someone who seems to have been doing this for a long time would have had it.

Instant trading? Fees under 1% per annum all-in.

Those seem like things that presumably people could only have dreamed of 50 years ago?

And I daresay in years to come that people will query when people got "ripped off" by those expensive passive funds

Some while ago, most people of modest means certainly didn't have stockbroker accounts. Shares were commonly bought or sold though the local bank though many people didn't have bank accounts either. (You had to pay a monthly fee to get one.) Later, some banks introduced computerised systems in a back-office where you agreed a price by touching a touch-screen. Eventually we masses got instant trading of sorts over the phone, but no prices. We found yesterday's closing prices in the FT.

Then along came the amazing new-fangled Teletext thingy with prices for a couple of hundred stocks, updated every half-hour or so I think. I had a teletext card which imported prices, with some faffing, to my pc.

Dealing prices pre-internet eventually came down to 1% with a couple of brokers. The scariest bit for a newbie was speaking with the traders who spat out a price and expected a yay or nay within a split second. For them time was money and they didn't want young oiks like me wasting their time.

Already, pre-RDR AMCs of 1.75% on funds, including trail-commission, seem a distant memory.

On costs, last time I looked comparison wasn't straightforward. The US was cheaper than the UK but the UK was a lot cheaper than many other countries. As Zing suggests, there's still some way to go but RDR, forced through despite the pressures of vested interests, was a huge step forward and is seen as on ongoing project by the FCA.

[Deleted User]

Rollinghome wrote: »

Some while ago, most people of modest means certainly didn't have stockbroker accounts. Shares were commonly bought or sold though the local bank though many people didn't have bank accounts either. (You had to pay a monthly fee to get one.) Later, some banks introduced computerised systems in a back-office where you agreed a price by touching a touch-screen. Eventually we masses got instant trading of sorts over the phone, but no prices. We found yesterday's closing prices in FT.

That rings true.
If you sold a stock, you would not even know the price until the next day.
There was no time stamp, and the suspicion was that your order would be bundled in to the least advantageous trade of the day.
Things are better now, because of the internet.

kinger101

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Thought I had reined myself in in that regard but, if kinger has evidence: post it below.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6084468

kinger101

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Or, if anyone else has a link, help out kinger101

Does he work in the financial services industry?

I don't. But if I did, what point are you making with your ad hom?