Baillie Gifford or HSBC?

chelseablue

I've narrowed down fund choices to either Baillie Gifford Managed or HSBC Global Strategy Dynamic Portfolio (Or the adventurous one??) 
Its for my husbands SIPP. He's 31 so plenty of years to stay invested 
Is one considered better than the other?? 
Or shall I just stop dithering and pick one

Prism

HSBC Global Strategy Dynamic is the safest bet and cheapest. BG Managed is actually reasonably cheap for a managed fund but more heavily weighted towards growth. I went with the BG fund for one of our pensions.

chelseablue

Thank you!
Regarding BG, being weighted towards growth is good isn't it? As its for a pension 
Why would HSBC be the safest bet? I was leaning towards BG but not sure now

Prism

chelseablue said:

Thank you!
Regarding BG, being weighted towards growth is good isn't it? As its for a pension 
Why would HSBC be the safest bet? I was leaning towards BG but not sure now

Only because the HSBC fund is invested in diverse passive funds. You are going to pretty much get the market return. The managers won't really get involved except for some rebalancing the fund to keep the risk level in line.

The BG fund managers have much more control to try and capture the growth companies but they can also make mistakes doing it. For example the top three holdings are Tesla, Amazon and Shopify rather than Apple, Microsoft and Amazon.

Its pretty much a passive vs active debate which only you can decide the answer to. I went for the BG fund but the less risky option is probably the HSBC fund.

Albermarle

Have both ?

IvanOpinion

I agree with Albermarie, why not have a bit of both?

chelseablue

Never even thought to do both. Wouldn't there be a lot of overlap having both? 
He doesn't have a large sum yet unfortunately, only £14,000 at the moment (will be adding at least £200 a month usually more)

Scrudgy

If I had narrowed it down to the last two, then I would buy both and monitor from there

[Deleted User]

“Growth” sounds good but it does not necessarily mean better returns. Over the longer term value has outperformed growth.  In the last 10 years growth has done better but that tells you nothing about the future. 

MarkCarnage

I think that equating passive with safe, as was done, perhaps unwittingly, above is misleading. Passive gives (or should give) the relevant market index return for that asset class, less charges. Active funds can be more or less volatile than the beta of the market index. The trick is finding an active fund that gives a better return at lower risk than the market.....it's certainly not easy but it can be done though not through all phases of a market cycle. However, let's not kid ourselves that passive = low risk. 

itwasntme001

Deleted_User said:

“Growth” sounds good but it does not necessarily mean better returns. Over the longer term value has outperformed growth.  In the last 10 years growth has done better but that tells you nothing about the future. 

Over what long term has value out-performed growth?