Fisher Investments UK - opinions?

masonic

Silverpete said:

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.

The chart I posted speaks for itself. The question was related to the fund featured in the chart. Active funds exist that are suitable for certain objectives, but the fund under discussion has no discernable merits.

I'm willing to hold active or tracker funds in my portfolio. Active funds currently make up only 14% of my portfolio, and my largest active fund by has a management charge of 0.39%. What I am "pro" is not being ripped off for mediocre performance and greater exposure to loss in a downturn. But I suspect I was not the target of your comments.

Pumpkin75

I assure you as someone who has been talking to them this week, performance stats are net of annual management fee. Custodian and initial fee may not be (though the response I had to my question detailed all fees and stated that performance data was net of these.)

I am looking for feedback from people who have chosen to invest with them.

masonic

If you're only interested in customer service, not value for money, then Trustpilot is probably a better bet.

Eyeful

Silverpete said:

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.

1. Yes, I  use  a passive low cost FTSE- All World ETF and have done for quite some time.

2. You say it is easy to play against them if you are a small investor.
Then please name the active wealth manager (who over lets say just 20 years) after charges/ fees are taken into account  consistently matches or outperforms the FTSE-All World index.

UncleK

I've done my best Pumpkin75.
IMHO Fishers have an overkeen salesperson who is conflating the two Annual Management Fees into one when there should be two. Those FT figures tell the story.
I am (obviously) not a Fisher investor but I went all the way of talking to them and getting detailed quotes which is where my figures come from before I then did the maths and made my decision.
Good luck in whatever you do but please get it all in writing.

InterestInInvesting

Hello, I would appreciate the Forum’s perspective: I’m at the point of investing with Fisher and would appreciate perspective or experience of the organisation.
My assumption is for the 1.7% annual fee I am selecting a portfolio manager that greater than average outperforms the MSCI net of fees. Their performance, risk management and professionalism are better than the others I researched.
My investment history is on average below the MSCI and I am a late starter, hence pressure to select and pay for superior performance. UncleK’s comment does make me pause and the reason I’m hoping to validate my assumptions, I’m willing to pay for perceived greater performance and active risk management. I am also comfortable index investing.
Many thanks in advance.

masonic

InterestInInvesting said:

Hello, I would appreciate the Forum’s perspective: I’m at the point of investing with Fisher and would appreciate perspective or experience of the organisation.
My assumption is for the 1.7% annual fee I am selecting a portfolio manager that greater than average outperforms the MSCI net of fees. Their performance, risk management and professionalism are better than the others I researched.
My investment history is on average below the MSCI and I am a late starter, hence pressure to select and pay for superior performance. UncleK’s comment does make me pause and the reason I’m hoping to validate my assumptions, I’m willing to pay for perceived greater performance and active risk management. I am also comfortable index investing.
Many thanks in advance.

A previous poster was put into this fund: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81728871/#Comment_81728871

You can reliably harvest the performance of an index through a low cost index fund. You are quite unlikely to consistently beat it by giving away more of your returns in fees.

If you want help with risk management (i.e. don't want exposure to the full ups and downs of the market), then an IFA would be a better (and likely cheaper) place to go for a portfolio tailored to your objectives.

Eyeful

1. Name which of their funds that after charges and fees have been deducted has over 20 years say,
consistently beaten a simple world tracker index like say the FSE All World Index or ACWI?

You can buy a fund which will very closely track either index for an on going charge of 0.22% or less.

2. Before you decide what to do:
Watch this:  https://www.kroijer.com/
Read these: 
https://monevator.com/passive-fund-of-funds-the-rivals/
https://monevator.com/best-global-tracker-funds/

InterestInInvesting

Many thanks for all responses Bessie, Eyeful and Masonic, it’s the biggest financial decision I’ve made so it’s appreciated.
I’ve researched SJP, SPW and Evelyn Partners. Fisher scored higher for performance and risk management. The fund that consistently beat the benchmark is Purisima (noting volatility and not always, but net of fees it has done it circa 80% of the time).

I’m researching IFAs, my thinking was I wanted a proven active manager that would justify the fees. I would be comfortable Index tracking, I’m trying to verify if Fisher is a better option (net of fees), appreciate the education in the videos.
I’ve been through the pushy sales process, now verifying the assumptions and claims behind it.

UncleK

As you can imagine, I can't resist jumping in. I'll let Google AI do some work:
"Whether Purisima "beats the MSCI" depends heavily on the specific time frame, the exact Purisima fund or strategy in question, and the particular MSCI benchmark used. While it has achieved short-term outperformance in certain instances, long-term analyses have generally shown the funds have struggled to consistently beat their MSCI benchmarks, often due to high fees and market dynamics favoring passive index funds."
..............and then add Fisher's management fee.
If you are comfortable index tracking, why do anything else?