need suggestions for some reputable actively managed funds?

Prism

robatwork said:

About 10 years ago the absolute #1 active manager was Neil Woodford. If someone recommended him to you 20 years ago and you invested in the fund he managed (various Invesco) you'd have been delighted with the performance.

Then he setup shop on his own. I followed him to his company as he was about the surest thing you could get in a UK active investment manager. After a couple of years I cashed out, thoroughly underwhelmed. It didn't get any better and now there are legal actions and regulatory investigations pending against him. 

The point is - nobody can recommend a decent reputable fund manager to you. He was the most reputable and it all fell down like a pack of cards. 

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

I think this is a good point as we can all become biased about something that has previously worked for us. I had never invested in an Invesco Woodford fund but when he went solo I had a look, and relatively quickly decided that although past performance was great, something was wrong with the new fund and it was not for me. However would I be so quick to see the problems with funds that have worked well for me. What I do is watch for any changes in approach and use these as reasons to recheck my original investment decision.

bostonerimus

If you are nervous about your investments you should first be looking at your asset allocation rather than changing from index to active funds. So if you were looking to limit losses and were asking about "capital preservation funds" it would be more sensible. It is vital to have thought about what you'll do when your funds reduce in value by 10%, 20% or even 50% well before that happens. Personally I'd stick with the index strategy and rebalance, that's what I did in 2008 and it worked out well enough.

dunstonh

Then he setup shop on his own. I followed him to his company as he was about the surest thing you could get in a UK active investment manager. 

Not necessarily.   Star managers at big fund houses who go on to start their own fund house have a poor record.     Many investors will not invest in the fund house that is named after/owned by the star manager.   its an odds game as some have done very well but more haven't.    When you take the systems and controls away from the star manager and change the team that is behind them, anything can happen.

The point is - nobody can recommend a decent reputable fund manager to you. He was the most reputable and it all fell down like a pack of cards. 

Although research companies were issuing warnings in 2017 that his fund should not be used due to high levels of illiquid assets.  It went on to fail in 2019.

Also, UK equity income went off the boil after the credit crunch and has been out of favour until recently as it just didn't suit that period.  Even if he had stayed at Inv Perp, the investing style would have seen him have a rough period.   the important thing for investors was more the style and not the manager.

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

bostonerimus

dunstonh said:.

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

I have a guaranteed minimum annuity rate of 3% on my TIAA Traditional account in the US that I first purchased in 1987. This year it is accumulating at 4.5%. But for some of the early years the contributions were compounding at 7%. A few years ago they reduce the minimum rate to 1% for new accounts. Ah the ups and downs of interest rates. At least TIAA avoided locking themselves in to unsustainable rates and there isn't the complication of the stock market and with profits aspects.

dunstonh

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:.

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

I have a guaranteed minimum annuity rate of 3% on my TIAA Traditional account in the US that I first purchased in 1987. This year it is accumulating at 4.5%. But for some of the early years the contributions were compounding at 7%. A few years ago they reduce the minimum rate to 1% for new accounts. Ah the ups and downs of interest rates. At least TIAA avoided locking themselves in to unsustainable rates and there isn't the complication of the stock market and with profits aspects.

In contrast, the Eq Life GARs were fixed rate double digits back in 87.

Thrugelmir

robatwork said:

About 10 years ago the absolute #1 active manager was Neil Woodford. 

Reputation was built after taking a contrarian stance during the Dot Com boom of the late 90's. Another case of investing with hindsight by many. The best ideas only become so after the event. At the time totally unfashionable and ridiculed......

bostonerimus

dunstonh said:

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:.

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

I have a guaranteed minimum annuity rate of 3% on my TIAA Traditional account in the US that I first purchased in 1987. This year it is accumulating at 4.5%. But for some of the early years the contributions were compounding at 7%. A few years ago they reduce the minimum rate to 1% for new accounts. Ah the ups and downs of interest rates. At least TIAA avoided locking themselves in to unsustainable rates and there isn't the complication of the stock market and with profits aspects.

In contrast, the Eq Life GARs were fixed rate double digits back in 87.

Yes, crazy. The TIAA Traditional rate fell back from the 7% and 8% as rates went down...it is not a variable annuity linked to stock market returns and has been sitting around 4% while rates have been so low. I would avoid combining stock market returns and  complicated insurance products like Equitable Life offered. 

Thrugelmir

dunstonh said:

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:.

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

I have a guaranteed minimum annuity rate of 3% on my TIAA Traditional account in the US that I first purchased in 1987. This year it is accumulating at 4.5%. But for some of the early years the contributions were compounding at 7%. A few years ago they reduce the minimum rate to 1% for new accounts. Ah the ups and downs of interest rates. At least TIAA avoided locking themselves in to unsustainable rates and there isn't the complication of the stock market and with profits aspects.

In contrast, the Eq Life GARs were fixed rate double digits back in 87.

Long dated US Treasuries offered 15.25% yield back in 1987. 

coyrls

Thrugelmir said:

dunstonh said:

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:.

I go back further when I had a pension in Equitable Life, which had a 5* AAA rating from every ratings agency. Again one of if not the most reputable name in the investment/pensions industry. You can google what became of them. 

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

I have a guaranteed minimum annuity rate of 3% on my TIAA Traditional account in the US that I first purchased in 1987. This year it is accumulating at 4.5%. But for some of the early years the contributions were compounding at 7%. A few years ago they reduce the minimum rate to 1% for new accounts. Ah the ups and downs of interest rates. At least TIAA avoided locking themselves in to unsustainable rates and there isn't the complication of the stock market and with profits aspects.

In contrast, the Eq Life GARs were fixed rate double digits back in 87.

Long dated US Treasuries offered 15.25% yield back in 1987. 

And Equitable Life proved that setting a GAR for the future based on 1987 rates was a bad decision.

robatwork

dunstonh said:

Funnily enough, even back when they were trading, many did question how they could afford to offer guaranteed annuity rates that were so much higher than the rest.  There were claims of it being too good to be true but as GARs were still under market rates, no-one predicted that things would change so much and suddenly GARs would become an expensive liability. Those voices were ignored.

Back in those days, the marketing men ran the bonus rates.  Not the accountants and actuaries. 

My point that I've made before is that the man-on-the-street-or-omnibus/unsophisticated investor should always look away from the lone voices but to the institutions setup to rate and oversee the financial companies.  In the case of Equitable, those were Standard & Poor and Micropal (and I am sure others). How would that person know to ignore the gold plated ratings and listen to the voices?  I wasn't attracted to EL by the guaranteed rates, but instead by my father who also told me what a fine institution it was...

I expect and hope things are better now, because fundamentally a lot of people want to believe someone out there really wants them to get rich, whereas the reality is the opposite.   To the OP I'd say if you're here then you're half way to knowing enough to do it all yourself (and that could be in a low cost tracker). No fund manager wants you to make money more than you.