What are your annual costs?

AlanP_2

Prompted by this discussion and out of interest I worked out my fees over the last 12 months to include:

Fund/ITs/ETF - Ongoing Charge (as per fact sheets)
Platform Fees
Stamp Duty / Tax
Dealing Fees


Comes out at 0.56%.

That's for 10 ITs, 3 Tracker funds, 1 Active Fund, and 2 "managed portfolios" (Personal Pension and Workplace Pension).

Could be simplified and it could be done cheaper but the majority of the ITs do offer something different to standard equity / bond funds so added diversification, or at least that's the theory 

incus432

dunstonh said:

There are portfolios out there that would appear to have too many funds on face value.   I know one that has over 40.   However, its target market is multi-million pound investors.  Not £100k investors.  

Some 10 years ago I attended an event on post-retirement planning organised by my public sector employer. The afternoon was given over to an FA/IFA who showed his model portfolio of 20-30 funds (mostly expensive active ones) and told us this was essential to diversify your holdings. Even then I knew this was nonsense and highly misleading. He used the session to advertise his advice services and hand out his business cards. 

dunstonh

incus432 said:

dunstonh said:

There are portfolios out there that would appear to have too many funds on face value.   I know one that has over 40.   However, its target market is multi-million pound investors.  Not £100k investors.  

Some 10 years ago I attended an event on post-retirement planning organised by my public sector employer. The afternoon was given over to an FA/IFA who showed his model portfolio of 20-30 funds (mostly expensive active ones) and told us this was essential to diversify your holdings. Even then I knew this was nonsense and highly misleading. He used the session to advertise his advice services and hand out his business cards. 

20 is not unreasonable.     Vanguard Lifestrategy has 19 IIRC.  30 is pushing it but again, if their target market is high net worth then liquidity and fund house limits can come into play as mentioned previously.

Those sessions are marketing.  That is their sole reason for existing.  

Bostonerimus1

incus432 said:

dunstonh said:

There are portfolios out there that would appear to have too many funds on face value.   I know one that has over 40.   However, its target market is multi-million pound investors.  Not £100k investors.  

Some 10 years ago I attended an event on post-retirement planning organised by my public sector employer. The afternoon was given over to an FA/IFA who showed his model portfolio of 20-30 funds (mostly expensive active ones) and told us this was essential to diversify your holdings. Even then I knew this was nonsense and highly misleading. He used the session to advertise his advice services and hand out his business cards. 

Diversification is important, but you don't need a large number of actively managed funds to achieve that today.

thunderroad88

dunstonh said:

Compares very favourably vs the charges we were paying with our IFA which were about 1.4%…we’re saving about £7k a year and our pf is performing significantly better than the old IFA one

How do you know it’s performing significantly better unless you have the two portfolios still running side by side?

Because it’s not difficult to have a spreadsheet which tracks the performance of the old pf since I moved from it and compare it to the performance of my new pf since I moved to it?