Best Junior Stocks and Shares ISA 2025?

blowzy

I’m looking to open a Junior Investment ISA using funds from an existing Child Trust Fund (CTF). I’m relatively new to this area, but I want to make sure my child has the best possible start in life. My child will be turning 18 in around 4–5 years.

I’m not a financial expert, so ideally, I’m looking for a simple, “set and forget” option that can grow well over time. I’ve heard that Hargreaves Lansdown doesn’t charge fees for Junior ISAs—does that mean I’d need to choose my own investments, or can a professional manage this on my behalf?

Thank you in advance for any advice, and please let me know if you need any more details.

Albermarle

Hargreaves Lansdown and Fidelity charge no platform fees for a JISA, but yes you have to choose the investments.
Professional advice is really only suitable for larger funds, as it is too expensive for smaller ones.
In any case few advisors would be interested in anything less than £50K, or even £100K.

However it is not necessary to be a financial expert to pick investments nowadays. There are many low cost ready made /multi asset funds that would suit your purpose. In any case with only 4 or 5 years to go, you might be better off/more secure in a savings JISA. Investments are best held for longer periods.

blowzy

Albermarle said:

Hargreaves Lansdown and Fidelity charge no platform fees for a JISA, but yes you have to choose the investments.
Professional advice is really only suitable for larger funds, as it is too expensive for smaller ones.
In any case few advisors would be interested in anything less than £50K, or even £100K.

However it is not necessary to be a financial expert to pick investments nowadays. There are many low cost ready made /multi asset funds that would suit your purpose. In any case with only 4 or 5 years to go, you might be better off/more secure in a savings JISA. Investments are best held for longer periods.

thanks for your comment. My child already has a saving account for the immediate future, I want to get him started on investing early, for later life 10-15 years later. Likely this JISA will be converted into an Adult ISA. What multi assets funds would you recommend, ideally a medium-long hold. Thanks again!

Albermarle

Two popular ranges are ;
Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

Both offer a range of about five.
The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

Fees for all of them are around 0.2%

xylophone

https://monevator.com/passive-fund-of-funds-the-rivals/ might be worth a read.

Nurse2047

Watch https://youtube.com/@damientalksmoney?si=DOAZ8md5U3bU512y

blowzy

Albermarle said:

Two popular ranges are ;
Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

Both offer a range of about five.
The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

Fees for all of them are around 0.2%

Hiya, would you suggest I go for cautious or adventours or somewhere in between on the spectrum. I'm pretty new to this. Also my daughter has £700 of Legal & General (N) Tracker Trust, when transferring to HL should I keep the current shares or sell to cash. Thanks

Albermarle

blowzy said:

Albermarle said:

Two popular ranges are ;
Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

Both offer a range of about five.
The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

Fees for all of them are around 0.2%

Hiya, would you suggest I go for cautious or adventours or somewhere in between on the spectrum. I'm pretty new to this. Also my daughter has £700 of Legal & General (N) Tracker Trust, when transferring to HL should I keep the current shares or sell to cash. Thanks

Which one to go for is your decision, we can not offer personal advice on the forum. Only guidance/pointers etc .
I would only say the adventurous ones are more suited to longer term investment. Ten years minimum.
The cautious ones will probably not produce much more growth than a savings account.

blowzy

Albermarle said:

Two popular ranges are ;
Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

Both offer a range of about five.
The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

Fees for all of them are around 0.2%

1) Why is Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy better than investing in the S&P 500 or 

Vanguard Funds Plc FTSE All-World UCITS ETF
2) Which is better out of Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC global strategy. I heard passive management is better than active? but vanguard has a home bias?

Albermarle

blowzy said:

Albermarle said:

Two popular ranges are ;
Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

Both offer a range of about five.
The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

Fees for all of them are around 0.2%

1) Why is Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy better than investing in the S&P 500 or 

Vanguard Funds Plc FTSE All-World UCITS ETF
2) Which is better out of Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC global strategy. I heard passive management is better than active? but vanguard has a home bias?

Regarding question 1) No investment is 'better' than another one. It is which is most appropriate for the situation/person involved.
The two you mention are 100% equity. This means that they are more suitable for the long term ( > 10 years) and for people with strong nerves as they can drop alarmingly in a stock market crash. The S&P one is more risky than the All world one ,as it is more concentrated.
2) Multi asset funds normally have less than 100% equity ( it ranges from 20% to 90%) , this makes them less volatile ( which many people prefer )and better if the time scale is a bit less than 10 years. They use a blend of passive trackers, but you are right there is a level of active management involved . Life Strategy has a home bias but the % equity always stays the same ( So VLS 60 will always have 60% equity) . HSBC GS varies the equity within a tightish range .
So it is not true active management, a kind of active/passive , or passive/active. 

Note the fund VLS 100 is a bit of an odd one out, so unlike all the other LS products it is 100% equity , but it still has a home bias.
Regarding home bias, in the past few years HSBC GS have outperformed their VLS equivalents by about 1 % pa, but it can easily turn around the other way.

blowzy

Albermarle said:

blowzy said:

Albermarle said:

Two popular ranges are ;
Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

Both offer a range of about five.
The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

Fees for all of them are around 0.2%

1) Why is Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy better than investing in the S&P 500 or 

Vanguard Funds Plc FTSE All-World UCITS ETF
2) Which is better out of Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC global strategy. I heard passive management is better than active? but vanguard has a home bias?

Regarding question 1) No investment is 'better' than another one. It is which is most appropriate for the situation/person involved.
The two you mention are 100% equity. This means that they are more suitable for the long term ( > 10 years) and for people with strong nerves as they can drop alarmingly in a stock market crash. The S&P one is more risky than the All world one ,as it is more concentrated.
2) Multi asset funds normally have less than 100% equity ( it ranges from 20% to 90%) , this makes them less volatile ( which many people prefer )and better if the time scale is a bit less than 10 years. They use a blend of passive trackers, but you are right there is a level of active management involved . Life Strategy has a home bias but the % equity always stays the same ( So VLS 60 will always have 60% equity) . HSBC GS varies the equity within a tightish range .
So it is not true active management, a kind of active/passive , or passive/active. 

Note the fund VLS 100 is a bit of an odd one out, so unlike all the other LS products it is 100% equity , but it still has a home bias.
Regarding home bias, in the past few years HSBC GS have outperformed their VLS equivalents by about 1 % pa, but it can easily turn around the other way.

thanks for the response! As this money will likely be saved long term, would It be more sensible to go for the global fund? Also I have around £850  worth of shares in the L&G tracker trust in the CTF at the moment. As I am looking to transfer, should I sell this and invest the money into the global?