Fund performance with Financial Advisor only gained 5.74% in five and a half years.

cleverdic

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

Aminatidi

I think most people think that at a bare minimum some definition of what "medium growth with risk" means in your case would help.

If you walked into meetings with 10 IFAs asking for "medium growth with risk" I don't think you'd walk out with 10 identical recommendations.

coyrls

cleverdic said:

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

There's some confusion in terminology here:

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018

Should be:

Because as I have stated, it is an actively managed portfolio. Only 6 of the 18 funds within the portfolio today were held at the beginning of 2018

The funds themselves could also be defined as "active" or "passive" depending on how the funds are managed by their respective fund managers.

Mothman

cleverdic said:

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

Yes, but it's your overall asset allocation which is key to assessing the performance, not whether your portfolio is active or passive. Your IFA may change funds but I doubt he is making wild changes to your broad asset allocation. Eight pages in and no one has any idea as to your asset allocation.

Bostonerimus1

cleverdic said:

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

A simple equity to bond allocation would help in assessing your portfolio's performance. If there's been a lot of turnover in your portfolio and all you have to show for it is 5% return over the last 5 years then I would be both frustrated and angry. As I've said before I have an roughly 85% equity and 15% bond portfolio of large cap US and International stocks and bonds and my fund fees are around 0.07%. I haven't done any selling, but have bought more of the same funds, and over the last 5 years my cumulative investment gain is 50%. My portfolio's asset allocation is right for my needs, it's inexpensive, it's simple and I don't actively manage it. Your advisor needs to answer some questions IMO.

masonic

cleverdic said:

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

Knowing that the portfolio has substantially changed is a useful caveat, but knowledge the current portfolio composition is still essential if you want opinions about its appropriateness, or whether it should be changed.

cleverdic said:

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

Would you be more comfortable sharing detailed information about your personal circumstances? Preferably the same information you shared with your adviser 5 years ago, and anything you let them know changed over those intervening years. It would be terribly unfair to berate an adviser for putting you into a portfolio based on information you disclosed that we don't know about.

Once again, "medium growth with risk fund" could mean anything to anyone. It's like saying you live in a nice house, asking us if the valuation you've obtained is fair, but telling us neither where in the country you are located or any detailed information about the house.

dunstonh

If you walked into meetings with 10 IFAs asking for "medium growth with risk" I don't think you'd walk out with 10 identical recommendations.

Not only would the outcomes be different but also the context of "medium growth with risk".  One person's medium risk is another low risk or high risk.        We use time-weighted portfolios. So, is that medium risk for short term, medium term or long term etc?

masonic

dunstonh said:

If you walked into meetings with 10 IFAs asking for "medium growth with risk" I don't think you'd walk out with 10 identical recommendations.

Not only would the outcomes be different but also the context of "medium growth with risk".  One person's medium risk is another low risk or high risk.        We use time-weighted portfolios. So, is that medium risk for short term, medium term or long term etc?

I suppose it is the person who says "medium growth with risk" when they really mean they can tolerate only a small risk of a medium term loss, for whom advice is the best value for money. What they get may not be what it seems from their own description.

cleverdic

masonic said:

cleverdic said:

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

Knowing that the portfolio has substantially changed is a useful caveat, but knowledge the current portfolio composition is still essential if you want opinions about its appropriateness, or whether it should be changed.

cleverdic said:

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

Would you be more comfortable sharing detailed information about your personal circumstances? Preferably the same information you shared with your adviser 5 years ago, and anything you let them know changed over those intervening years. It would be terribly unfair to berate an adviser for putting you into a portfolio based on information you disclosed that we don't know about.

Once again, "medium growth with risk fund" could mean anything to anyone. It's like saying you live in a nice house, asking us if the valuation you've obtained is fair, but telling us neither where in the country you are located or any detailed information about the house.

I hope I have not come across as someone trying to berate my IFA. It's probably for that reason I am reluctant, nay unwilling to disclose the investment. It could be a bloodbath or otherwise so that is another reason I don't wish to disclose. So many people have picked up on my terminology and how I am describing my investment. Well it's just proof that I am out of my depth when discussing this subject and thus seeking friendly opinions.
   
I have already outlined my personal circumstance but happy to repeat.
Back in 2018, I was approaching retirement. I wanted to invest £100K representing around 20% of a balanced cash/property/investment portfolio. I did not have any future plans or needs for this money, for example to provide an annuity, except for it to hopefully attract a better rate of return than a savings account. I was very happy to accept an investment which I believe would offer a medium growth (my words. I've also seen the word "balanced" used to describe the investment), I was not looking to provide income, or a low return very safe or conversely potentially high return but high risk. I was happy to accept risk in order to achieve the growth. I was not looking for the fast buck and I was fully prepared to take a loss which indeed happened in March 2020 when lockdown began.

Now fully retired and 5.5 years later and after seeing at first hand the affects of Covid and other UK and world events and how it has significantly affected the investment at any given time, I see my investment is now 5.74% higher than when I first started. (I did take out £10K around 2 years ago). I am assuming these UK and world events would affect any similar investment. My own personal circumstances have not materially changed during that period. The balance of my portfolio remains roughly the same. Does 5.74% represent a fair return or should I be investigating an alternative? 

Throughout this thread, I have tried to refine my original question as I received more input. I have seen one liners express a simple message. I have seen fascinating discussions on investing in general, way over my head, and I have also come across folk that are desperate to open the bonnet, get their magnifying glass out and scrutinise the engine in minute detail. That is a fair point but I'm keeping the bonnet closed. I'm not asking for any opinion at all on how the investment is shaped and whether changing the makeup, no of funds or type of funds could offer more. I can see though that this is exercising quite a few folk here.

I can however, categorically state that the investment has yielded 5.74% in 5.5 years. I'll also add that I see the percentage change daily and if I look at the performance over the last 30 days, I see a high of 6.32% and a low of 3.47%. I just want to know if I should start thinking about alternatives based on the return I'm seeing against the expectation I laid out back in 2018. I have to say though that I am already forming my own opinion on what to do based on people here willing to make the contribution, whether I like it or not. I do appreciate all input.

EthicsGradient

cleverdic said:

Mothman said:

It amazes me why someone would start a thread then refuse to provide the required information to enable people to answer their question.  They are asking for people to critique the return they gave experienced but then say they don't want to list the funds in case people critique the IFA's choices, yet the two things are inextricably linked. As the old saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'.

Because as I have stated, it is an active fund. Only 6 of the 18 assets within the fund today were held at the beginning of 2018. I'm not going to publish the history of what was bought or sold over the last 5.5 years.

I've now stated this a number of times, I'm seeking to get a sense of what would be expected from a medium growth with risk fund for my own personal circumstances. I think most people commenting on this thread understand what I am trying to evaluate here.

That seems a fairly high turnover - 2/3rds of the funds within 5 years. That may also be part of the reason for why charges have been high - some funds still have an implicit cost in trading them (though it's not clear if this is inside or outside an ISA - if outside, a turnover to use CGT allowances makes sense).