Fisher Investments UK - opinions?

masonic

InterestInInvesting said:

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).

Well if you've been told that then you have been lied to.

Blue line above red line most of the time, and when red line moves above blue line, it gives up all of its gains during the next fall. I reckon there are 3-4 years of outperformance there out of 13. That is nowhere near 80% of the time.

The Purisima fund is a classic example of a fund with zero risk management that just puts its investors' money at greater risk, but eventually takes back all of the extra returns for the fund manager rather than the investor. Investor takes the extra risk, fund manager takes none of the risk and all of the extra reward.

Any sale of it as "high performance" and "risk managed" is a con. It is an expensive closet tracker with some extra high risk stuff thrown in to cover the fees.

If you bought the index tracker in the blue line, you'd have a gentler ride with essentially the same growth (if you subtract the extra platform fees required to go with Fisher then you'd be considerably better off with the index fund on a cheap platform).

It actually makes me furious that people like yourself who are putting their trust in outfits like this are being exploited in this way.

Eyeful

1,You my like to see what the difference annual fees will make over different time periods.
You stated 1.7%
I stated 0.22%

Now stick the figure in and find the T-Rex Score :
https://larrybates.ca/t-rex-score/

The higher the T-Rex Score %. the more money ends up in your pocket and
 the less goes into the fund managers pocket.

2. Active fund managers will only outperform a Major Global Index due to either
(a) Luck (b) Taking on more risk.

Best of luck on whatever investment choice you make.

Enzo_L

InterestInInvesting said:

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.

You are not under any "pressure to select and pay for superior performance". 

Firstly. there is no "pressure"to seek "superior performance" because you think you're a late starter.. You could begin investing at 25 and die at 55, or begin at 61 and die at 105. You have no idea what the future holds, and any "pressure" is something you've made up. The best time to invest was sometime in the past, the second best time is now, and the worst outcome would come from not investing at all.

Secondly, you will certainly be paying through the nose if you follow your proposed course, but whether you get "superior performance" is very far from guaranteed. You'll be paying very high charges so you're guaranteed to be funding someone else's big house and porsche though however well you do, or not.

If your previous performance "is on average below the MSCI" then the most obviously sensible thing to do is buy a simple global tracker with very low charges, then you will get the performance of whichever global FTSE or MSCI index it follows. An annual charge of 1.7% is absolutely appalling.

If you are comfortable with index investing then don't pay a huge portion of your potential returns to someone to hold your hand while promising the earth and delivering very well for themselves at your expense.

UncleK

I think Fisher play on FOMO - Fear Of Missing Out

Eyeful

The description that I always remember as it rings the most true to me is 
Financial Advisor = Financial Salesman 

InterestInInvesting

Thank you for all your insights, again much appreciated. I confess I had pretty much decided to go with Fisher, but now consider myself swayed by your arguments and really glad I sought you opinion (my first time ever posting on a forum!).
Masonic - I had done my analysis using the FT, but need to start again based on your graph, where did you get that? Also confessing it was in part what was given by Fisher.
Uncle K - thanks for the Fund of Fund suggestion, I had discarded several based on fees and performance. But the Vanguard suggestion seems exactly what I’m looking for.
Enzo_L - sage advice and point well made thank you.
Eyeful - fee advice noted thanks, it was exactly the sense check I needed and was looking for.

masonic

InterestInInvesting said:

Masonic - I had done my analysis using the FT, but need to start again based on your graph, where did you get that? Also confessing it was in part what was given by Fisher.

Trustnet has a really nice chart tool that can be used to compare performance of funds. Here's a direct link to the two funds on a plot that can be played around with interactively: https://www2.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx?typeCode=FPMGTGB,FI10J

I chose Fidelity Index World just because its one of the oldest global index tracker funds, so could be compared over a long timescale. I find it valuable to look at performance over the longest time period possible, to avoid being sucked in by short-term results that are not sustainable.

UncleK

You're welcome - you've dodged a bullet, IMHO. A hail of bullets, in fact.
And I (and no doubt the other folks) appreciate the feedback.

Silverpete

InterestInInvesting - just one last point in that last graph provided have you co-related the outperformance of Fisher;s fund with Market downturns? The unknown we all face is when we will need to draw funds, if that time falls during a recession /  Market downturn then a simple tracker may not be delivering as well as a well managed fund. You will also need to remember that you risk profile really should change as you get towards 5 years or so of retirement. There is a reason that large companies turn their ensin funds over to profession active managers to run ratherthan simply buyin tracker funds.

ColdIron

Silverpete said:

The unknown we all face is when we will need to draw funds, if that time falls during a recession /  Market downturn then a simple tracker may not be delivering as well as a well managed fund.

Or of course that managed fund may perform worse. There are no guarantees

There is a reason that large companies turn their ensin funds over to profession active managers to run ratherthan simply buyin tracker funds.

Or it could be that large companies with actively managed funds make a significant margin over trackers. Just saying