Fisher Investments UK - opinions?

Albermarle

matstand said:

Hi 

I dont have any experience in investing, and frankly I dont think that I want to get involved in picking stocks. but i do want to optimise my pension. 

I have spent some time with Fisher investments and they sound credible. They can demonstrate clearly that had I put my pension funds with them over the last decade, that after fees I would have acheived much better returns than the 6.1% that i actually realised from my tracker funds. 

My funds are currently invested in a variety of trackers,  If not fisher, then what sort of organsation should i go to find someone to safely manage my pension funds and acheive a better than my standard pension growth rate?

my pension funds are currently around £400k and i want them to grow considerably over the next 8 years. If that makes any difference
 

You should find an IFA. Normally their charges will be less than a company like Fisher.

However nobody can promise anything about growth rates or 'safety', as we are all at the mercy of the markets.
Anybody who does promise results is a shyster,  and should be avoided.

my pension funds are currently around £400k and i want them to grow considerably over the next 8 years. If that makes any difference

Regardless of who you are with, to get growth you need to take risk . That means 'Investments can go down as well as up' You need to be more realistic that investing is not a  one way street where the only way is up. 
I want my pension to grow significantly over the next 8 years as well, but I am not banking on it, just hoping !

masonic

matstand said:

I have spent some time with Fisher investments and they sound credible. They can demonstrate clearly that had I put my pension funds with them over the last decade, that after fees I would have acheived much better returns than the 6.1% that i actually realised from my tracker funds.

The current annualised 10 year return from a global index fund is 10.0%. This also matches the sector average, so seems a fair number to represent the potential a DIY pension investor with more than an 18 year horizon at the outset could have achieved. You've fallen almost 4% per year short of that, which could be for a variety of reasons, but it would be a fallacy to state that any better return than yours is worth whatever was paid to achieve it.

For example, I could have invested your money in a global tracker, creamed off a 3% fee every year and you'd have been better off. I don't think you'd describe that behaviour as credible. You've not stated the return achieved by Fisher after fees, so no meaningful commentary can be made about whether you are getting better value than my facetious hypothetical scenario.

matstand said:

My funds are currently invested in a variety of trackers,  If not fisher, then what sort of organsation should i go to find someone to safely manage my pension funds and acheive a better than my standard pension growth rate?

You've not stated the charges you've been paying for Fisher to invest your money in a variety of trackers. But it is likely that you could get a superior personal service from an IFA for less than what you are paying Fisher, if you don't want to take on the responsibility of managing the investments yourself. For the amount you currently hold in your pension, this should be quite cost-effective and would cover a broader range of investment choices, within which there could be better choices available.

Bostonerimus1

seafarer said:

JohnWinder said:

I've never heard of anyone with an interest in some business planting a 'have a look at this business' post to a discussion forum.

I can assure you, I am not planting this for any marketing reason or hidden agenda. I am asking a genuine question, because Fisher Investments UK have been frequently calling me with assertive selling techniques.

They are well known in the US as being a high pressure sales operation and are avoided by anyone with any sense.

Bostonerimus1

matstand said:

Hi 

I dont have any experience in investing, and frankly I dont think that I want to get involved in picking stocks. but i do want to optimise my pension. 

I have spent some time with Fisher investments and they sound credible. They can demonstrate clearly that had I put my pension funds with them over the last decade, that after fees I would have acheived much better returns than the 6.1% that i actually realised from my tracker funds. 

My funds are currently invested in a variety of trackers,  If not fisher, then what sort of organsation should i go to find someone to safely manage my pension funds and acheive a better than my standard pension growth rate?

my pension funds are currently around £400k and i want them to grow considerably over the next 8 years. If that makes any difference
 

You'll be better off with an IFA and better off still by DIYing on an inexpensive platform if you have the sense to follow a few simple rules. I DIY using a very basic world equity index tracker portfolio and my average annual return over the past 10 years is 9.5% - you don't need to spend money on fees or speciality funds to get reasonable results. If you want your pension funds to grow then minimize fees (ie avoid firms like Fisher), increase the amount you contribute (people don't mention that often) and take risk (ie emphasize equities), but remember more risk means you could lose more when the inevitable corrections come along. With an 8 year time horizon you might step right into a sequence of returns disaster.

gm0

After discounting all outbound telesales companies - right out of the gate.  If they call. They are out.  As either scammers or not the kind of outfit you want to do business with anyway.  So the simplest rule is the easiest.  And the more we spread it.  The closer we can come to stamping it out as a source of fraud and slime business practices.  It would appear - given the reported use of outbound telesales - that Fisher fall within this subjective definition of people we would "never" as a family choose to do business with.  I know nothing about them other than the comment above that they are prolific outbound callers. If true. No sale. No further justification needed in our house.  And no further interest in Fisher.  They may be lovely people. Don't care.

The received wisdom of this forum seems to be that an independent (IFA) is what you want.  One that you approached.  And to have a few initial meetings with 2-3 options - to check compatible communication styles and what they propose to do and charge for it).  What they do will be similar (regulated). What they propose to charge may not be.   Styles - you may value local and face to face contact. Or prefer a more modern/digital zoom meeting experience and local doesn't matter.  You need to do you.  These are often quite small firms. Read paperwork offers.  Choose. Contract.  Do regulated fact find (about you).  Receive regulated advice deliverables.  Review recommendation and accept it.  Implement portfolio and any savings plan.

The issue finding a good IFA is that the directories of such have largely turned into lead generating paid advertising sites (charging the firms now established after a free period initially). So many IFAs are no longer on them as they don't regard the quantity and quality of leads generated as worth the fees now charged to be included.  The directories are (for the consumer) free but full of wealth managers and FAs and only a subset of independents but not *necessarily* the best, the more established, or the cheapest of those.  Quality is not really a selection criteria.  Directories have started a premium listings feature now based on review farming and astroturfing of reputation.  More time on digital marketing by the IFA/FA firm to get and stay up the list.  Effort and directory subscriptions needs paying for from somewhere.  i.e. from prices i.e. from your fees.

IFAs also have the unwelcome habit of selling their "book" (of customers with assets under management and a revenue stream of circa 0.5% pa - to FA firms at their own approach to retirement. So somebody who was an IFA may not be one later.  It is not obviously in their interests to be too upfront about updating everybody about this either.   As they have "sold you" on or down the river - clearly to provide ongoing services as a benefit to you  when they retire - naturally all in your own interests. But more incentive misalignment.  Once this happens the subsequent FA firm appointees will try and move you (in your own interests again of course via a "suitable" recommendation in the regulated sense at an annual review - onto surprise surprise - the firm's own products.  And at some point if you resist this attempt to slightly fleece you - will sorrowfully threaten a move to end servicing (which may be a bluff but is a commonly used way to get you to agree to take the mildly inferior product rather than start the whole dreary process again. Suitability looking a bit threadbare by this point.  Suitable doesn't mean better.  And it doesn't mean "good value".

So more googling required and looking locally to your area.  Not great news.  But it is what it is.

Personal recommendation is an option but then - people are regularly recommended perceived as friendly but really expensive wealth managers to friends.  People who are either cost insensitive or in a different wealth bracket needing different services than their friend. 

You need a firm that services people like you - whether it is UK, expat, wealth level, and which is whole of market.  And ideally not just a "singleton" without adequate admin support - where record keeping and longevity of ther services may be in doubt quite quickly.  A partnership or small firm with a few advisers, or a bit bigger.  For one off transactional advice without ongoing service - it doesn't matter so much as you are not trying to establish a long terms arrangement.

Who you use as the path to the market is of course - irrelevant to how well it performs other than via the drag of fees.

No advice company takes any responsibility whatsoever for the performance of underlying investments they recommend.  Let that sink in.  They get paid first. Rain or shine.

The most they will do is to confirm that at the time of the advice, and based on what you disclosed about your financials and objectives - that the investments were a suitable level of risk for someone like you to have taken.  How the gamble went.  Is on you.

What you invest in, and how aggressively in growth assets will drive this.  A proxy for "how aggressive" is % equities.  You will find many fund managers - HSBC, Aegon, Vanguard etc. provide "tiered" one stop funds which provide different levels of aggression.  Some of us saved our pensions at 100% equities.  Maximum potential return.  Maximum volatility.  >50% "losses" along the way.  Others find that a bit too exciting and will accept lower potential returns to reduce the large volatility swings.  A good way to look at what "happened" so far (net fees).  Is to look at what happened in the same period of time - to these risk tiered multi-asset funds.  Trustnet and Morningstar provide fairly easy web tools as a way to do this.  And to compare your current setup.  How it fits into this world view of cautious to extremely aggressive.  Advice or no advice you need to understand what "taking more risk" could mean to you both in terms of potential returns. And in terms of risk and potential % drawdowns running into retirement timescales.

You are in for an unwelcome shock if you think that over >10 years - an adviser introduced portfolio is going to repeatedly beat the global stock market average year after year.  Rain and shine. This is not what the data says happens.  Clearly it might - for a time. And for a tightly focused holding - even by a lot. Or it could do the complete opposite and lose by a lot - depending on the tiny slice of  the whole market focused in on.  An out of fashion set of funds - might come good at a different stage of the business cycle.  Your active funds might have managers gambling in the market on your behalf.  But the advisor won't be trading you in and out to avoid short term turbulence and volatility.

If a portfolio is "suitable" broad and diversified global holding - it will drop back closer to the market return for the asset classes involved.  As it must.   Because arithmetic.  Mean reversion.  At which point it starts to strongly resemble a passive portfolio holding again.  And the only difference that exists with that is how much you pay to hold it.  1% (0.5% advice and a "closet" tracker in aggregate at 0.5% pa.  Or <0.2% (for a 0.10% fund and a small platform fee and no advice).  One of these will outperform the other by 0.8% pa cumulatively due to it being the same beans in a different can at 20% the price.

Advice is a good thing - if you don't know how to do it and don't wish to learn it - then the 0.5% pa is the way you pay for it to go away.  The rest of the costs *should* be close to a wash. You can check market prices here. 
But don't carry any illusions that "better" results for you net fees are intrinsic to receiving financial advice.

matstand

Thanks everyone, thoughtful comments that have given me me something to think about.

Thanks

Eyeful

1. Before you entrust anyone to look after any of your money, I suggest you watch the following.

https://www.kroijer.com/

2. If you want to to pay for advice see an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Make sure they are an IFA and not just an FA. There are some on this site that also suggest you avoid those that call themselves "Wealth Managers".

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/best-financial-advisers/


3. This may be of interest to you as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYAgbBPBmkw

UncleK

What makes me laugh about Fisher is how they go on and on about transparent they are with their fees.............and yet nowhere on their site do they tell you what they are!  'nuff said!

Silverpete

For anyone who is interested Fisher Investments use Open Ended Investment companies for their UK clients. There are a variety of funds, the pure equity one is Purisima Global Return B [PMGTGB], it has a 5 star Morningstar rating, a high- ish 1.51% charge and has gained 25.655% YTD (2024). This performance tracks well against Fundsmith Equity T (13.206%) and the Lindsell Train Investment Trust (-15.286%), these two being popular choices for DIY investors.

I have some of my capital invested through Fishers and have found them to be effective in all they do. None of this is investment advice, please do you own research.  I just wished to bring some balance and information to the discussion.

dunstonh

There are a variety of funds, the pure equity one is Purisima Global Return B [PMGTGB], it has a 5 star Morningstar rating, a high- ish 1.51% charge and has gained 25.655% YTD (2024). This performance tracks well against Fundsmith Equity T (13.206%) and the Lindsell Train Investment Trust (-15.286%), these two being popular choices for DIY investors.

For reference, 1.51% charge is not "highish".  It is extremely high. 
It also has a 5.25% entry cost and TC of 0.06%.



Typical managed funds have no initial charge and are around 0.7% p.a.    Index trackers with no initial charge around 0.1-0.2% p.a.

It is higher risk than the average global equity fund.  So, you would expect higher returns in positive periods and greater losses in negative periods.

Risk Level:


 The reason for the outperformance in this short term period is because it has 29.19% in Tech.   Anything high in tech has done better than those with less in Tech.  it is also why the Fisher fund did so badly in 2022 when tech had a bad year. Tech is also higher risk than general market.  



If you want to slant your portfolio towards tech then use a tech fund and a global tracker fund and weight them accordingly:

That L&G fund is 0.32% and matched with one of the global trackers at 0.2x% you save yourself a lot of money.