Fisher Investments UK - opinions?

masonic

Whereas a low cost global index tracking ETF like SWDA is up 23% YTD. Choosing an active manager is risky business and unnecessary.

incus432

gm0 said:
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.

Hard agree with all this post but this in particular. Unbiased and VouchedFor are utterly useless and full of very expensive 'Wealth managers' who only want the high fees of advising on and ongoing management of large portfolios. FInancial advice seems to have become restricted to the very rich.  I eventually found an IFA just by searching locally

DragbertOLeary

Reading this thread I am now persuaded not to go with Fisher or similar (thanks for the advice) and I like the sound of picking a low cost global accumulation tracker fund to park my pension in (thanks again to masonic et al).  Any thoughts on how to make it happen? Do I need to move to a SIPP and choose a fund? Or can any pension provider do this if I ask? 

masonic

Most pensions will include low cost index tracking options, so you can probably keep the existing pension and just switch funds, unless you think you can save on costs by transferring the pension. If transferring, then you would apply to the new provider to arrange this (after checking you won't be losing any desirable benefits in switching, such as a protected retirement age).

Grimboh

A bit late to this thread but I hope still relevant. I have been with Fishers for just coming up 9 years now. I had a local IFA for a few years, was very disappointed with returns and the advice, then self-invested with Fidelity for a few years. I achieved an annualised 9% return after charges over those few years. Not bad from where I was but I found it stressful. So I contacted a few firms, including Fishers. Took me 18 months and 2 salesman to eventually commit some of our funds.
Someone stated that it's an initial 5.25% charge, but that's just when you look at fund stats - the reality was a 1% initial charge and an annual 1.5%, now reduced to 1.25% due to value threshold reductions. And 1% I think for £5m+, not sure though.
So, that's charges - but why look at charges? They are incidental - what matters is the actual return AFTER charges. To the end of Q2 2025 my annualised return after charges was 12.4% over nearly 9 years. Probably bordering on 13% at the end of Q3 but I don't have the figures yet.
Their emphasis is long term investing (30 year time horizon they say) , and yes it's volatile and the market can drop significantly. So hold tight, take out minimum money, none ideally, and wait for it bounce back - it will. Unless WW3 starts and then there's whole load of other issues of course....
Some are stating returns around 23-25% for other funds - fine, but that's just one year and 2024 was a good year for stocks. You have to look at the long term annualised return - for me this is really the only yardstick that counts.
OK, so there certainly are frustrations with Fishers. Too many layers involved, 3 for sipps 2 for ISA and taxables. Their admin isn't great - although not dreadful either. The delay with America for discussions with your Investment contact is a frustration - yes they're a UK company with a UK OIEC, but they service you, mainly, from the states.
And they have various departments who fail to communicate and/or carry out instructions quite how you might expect sometimes.
But overall am I happy with 12%+ returns? - definitely. Could I get more? Almost certainly. But you'd probably have to try to time the market to achieve that and deal in individual stocks. And timing the market is tricky. Did you get in with Invidia at the right time? If you did then you've done fantastically well. But it really is risky. Long term investing isn't really risky if you stick with it.
Fisher sold on achieving 10% returns over the prior 20 years. I struggled to believe that 9 years ago - but they have delivered and it does work. And for me it's much less stressful than DIY. And finding a good if IFA is tricky, more chance of seeing a unicorn in my experience.
So bad mouth them for high charges if you wish, but that's not the full story.

masonic

Grimboh said:
But overall am I happy with 12%+ returns? - definitely. Could I get more? Almost certainly. But you'd probably have to try to time the market to achieve that and deal in individual stocks. And timing the market is tricky. Did you get in with Invidia at the right time? If you did then you've done fantastically well. But it really is risky. Long term investing isn't really risky if you stick with it.

A bog standard global index fund (e.g. Fidelity Index World) delivered 13.7%pa returns over the past 10 years. Just buy and forget. This would have been achieved with lower risk and none of the other drawbacks you mention.

UncleK

A newbie arrives with their first post to tell us how good Fishers are. What do I smell? Fish? Or Fishers? You decide, folks..........

Grimboh

Well I can't help the fact that I'm a new sign up to this forum. Everyone has their own views and experiences. I have just stated my experience with them and the returns achieved. Maybe you think I'm lying and making it up. Why would I do that? All I'm doing is just balancing the arguments.
And there's no need (or place) for UncleK to belittle me. I didn't say they're good, but I am happy enough. I don't use them exclusively of course. And I didn't (and don't) recommend them - Everyone makes their own choices. But thanks for your feedback.

Grimboh

I'll also consider that fidelity fund, it's been running 11 years and has done well....

dunstonh

A bit late to this thread but I hope still relevant. I have been with Fishers for just coming up 9 years now. I had a local IFA for a few years, was very disappointed with returns and the advice, then self-invested with Fidelity for a few years. I achieved an annualised 9% return after charges over those few years. Not bad from where I was but I found it stressful. So I contacted a few firms, including Fishers. Took me 18 months and 2 salesman to eventually commit some of our funds.

You have been with Fishers for 9 years.  So, that is a period where a typical equities spread more than doubled..
You self invested for a few years which puts us about 2012-2014 ish. So, growth expected.  
You had an IFA before that who would have invested through the credit crunch or possibly earlier (the first decade of this millennium was an awful period for equities)

Aren't your returns more related to the periods in question?
Being disappointed with stockmarket returns through the first 10 years of this millennium would be expected, given it was such a poor period.   Being happy with stockmarket returns in the last decade would be expected given it was such a good period.

To compare more accurately, you would have to have had Fisher, the IFA and your DIY in the same periods at the same investment risk level.    Your way just shows Fisher in the best period without knowing what your DIY or IFA would have been in that same period.

Many many years ago, I spoke with someone who boasted about how good their decision had been to move one pension to another.   He said he lost money on the first one but the second one is doing great.    We looked at the investments and both were invested in a FTSE100 tracker.    So, he hadn't changed the investments at all.   The previous pension went a crash. The new one went through a recovery.   It also turned out the newer pension was more expensive.    So, actually the newer one was worse than the previous one but he just couldnt see it.