Fisher Investments UK - opinions?

Pumpkin75

to clarify -performance is net of the fees. I have confirmed this statement is correct

Pumpkin75

That's useful. Thanks. I am currently on HL, so I will look into Vanguard fees

UncleK

Pumpkin75 said:

to clarify -performance is net of the fees. I have confirmed this statement is correct

Really? The FT has them on 13.77% for five years and that will be before the management fees, which will be at least 1.125% and maybe as high as 1.5%. Then add the custodian charge......and don't forget the cost of entry.
I know I'm a broken record but I do suggest you head for the nearest bargepole shop.

UncleK

Pumpkin75 said:

That's useful. Thanks. I am currently on HL, so I will look into Vanguard fees

I dumped HL as they were a bit high for some non-Vanguard stuff I hold and moved it to iWeb. Vanguard aren't the cheapest but I will admit to some inertia and comfort with them as a major player compared to some of the smaller newbies.

masonic

UncleK said:

Pumpkin75 said:

to clarify -performance is net of the fees. I have confirmed this statement is correct

Really? The FT has them on 13.77% for five years and that will be before the management fees, which will be at least 1.125% and maybe as high as 1.5%. Then add the custodian charge......and don't forget the cost of entry.
I know I'm a broken record but I do suggest you head for the nearest bargepole shop.

I'm not sure which layer of fees we are referring to here, but the 1.5% fund AMC will be absorbed in the performance data. Any custody or advice fees will be additional.

Silverpete

Oh dear, 'Uncle K' check your figures then stop pretending that those performance stats do not include fees, also stop pretending that fees for SIPP investments don't apply to index funds and choose a wider set of investment ranges etc.etc. But heaven forfend that anyone should point out that a consistent active managed fund just might be a better long term bet for a buy and leave invester.

Eyeful

1. You state an ongoing charge for the fund as 1.5% (which is expensive).
The typical charge for a simple low cost passive Major  World Tracker Fund or ETF is between 0.12% to 0.22%.
The difference that alone makes over say 20 years, is going to be very large.
 See below the difference it make to the T-Rex score.
https://larrybates.ca/t-rex-score/

2. You want to do some analysis then
(a) compare the 10 year graph of the ACWI, against that of the Fisher fund  you say is so good.
(b) ask an AI chatbot "after charges/ fees taken into account has any Fisher fund consistently beaten the ACWI."

3. Academic research has repeatedly shown that after charges and fees are taken into account
"Most active fund managers can not beat a simple world index tracker". 

4. The following may be of interest and help to you:
(a) Watch this: https://www.kroijer.com/
(b) Read these:
https://monevator.com/passive-fund-of-funds-the-rivals/
https://monevator.com/best-global-tracker-funds/

Silverpete

Unfortunately you miss the point. Simple tracker funds are not that simple or tracker. It's easy to play against them if you are a small investor. Anyhoo I hold no torch for Fisher or any other wealth manager, but no all are bad for investors. Might I ask those who are so pro these tracker funds if they use them themselves? I'm not talking about short term weighted ones either.

Silverpete

please do make your comments, but I won't be engaging any more, 

UncleK

Silverpete, Masonic - apologies I should have been clearer. The "1.125% and maybe as high as 1.5%" I was referring to is separate to the fees associated with the fund and is Fisher's annual management fee as a percentage of all assets held. We are told that 1.5% AMC associated with fund is included in the performance then that's fair enough - but that's separate to Fisher's annual management fee.
Silverpete, as for the debate on active vs. passive, that's one that will run and run.........