Where To Find?

ANGLICANPAT

Hi
Whats the best place please that shows the general performance and rating , (in simple terms) of the various ISAS ? I want to find out how rubbish or otherwise my Hendersons Preference Bond ISA , and my Fidelity Managed International ISA 's are. Also my appearing to be rubbish SWidows flexible option bond which has lost me 10% in its first and only year, compared to the identical amount put into the similar Prufund at the same time which has made 10% Thanks

dunstonh

. Also my appearing to be rubbish SWidows flexible option bond which has lost me 10% in its first and only year

The bond doesnt make or lose money. Its the investments inside it that do. 2007 was generally a poor year for most asset classes with property, fixed interest and stockmarket (low to medium end) showing losses. Exception was the higher risk end were gains were generally significant.

compared to the identical amount put into the similar Prufund at the same time which has made 10%

That matches the few I have running on the Pru fund and NU with profits. Both have been running in double digits and 2007 saw increases on those above what was expected.

? I want to find out how rubbish or otherwise my Hendersons Preference Bond ISA , and my Fidelity Managed International ISA 's are.

Would you know how to read the data if you saw it there? I only ask because your SW bond comments suggest not.

You can try Trustnet and Morningstar as they have free limited information feeds for consumers.

ANGLICANPAT

Thanks Dunstanh . Ill look at them .
youre right, Im not very experienced with financial matters , I do know that theres funds within my wrapper, but i was sort of referring generally to my overall bonds performance when I said it was appearing to be rubbish . What Im not sure of is whether its my IFA that has chosen the individual funds in the wrapper, or if its a 'ready mixed package' that hes chosen which suits our level of risk. I do intend to ask him again, but I want to find out more about the bond . Im bothered about it because although I left the choosing at the time to the IFA , Ive since been reading back that lots ofpeople have thought SW has been giving poor performance for several years although Im not sure whether its the SW funds or their management of wrappers or both thats being referred to. Somewhere on this site in the last 24 hours someone has even suggested that SW may be on its way to being another NR , --that might be rot, but naturally Im looking at any info I can.
. As regards you asking if Im likely to understand the performance sites, Im capable of such basics, as noting quartiles , and the 1,3,5 year performance and the quality of the fund manager etc if its rated . I wouldnt understand too technical sites, which is exactly why I was specifically asking to be directed to the ones people considered the most straightforward.

We all have to start somewhere Dunstanh . Im sure even you had to learn! Ive precious little time and a precious little brain, but at least Im trying:beer:

dunstonh

Ive since been reading back that lots ofpeople have thought SW has been giving poor performance for several years although Im not sure whether its the SW funds or their management of wrappers or both thats being referred to.

The recent Scottish Widows threads refer to the Scottish Widows bond sold through LloydsTSB which has higher charges than the IFA version. Plus, tied agents at LTSB cannot advise on funds so they tend to stick you in a single fund rather than a portfolio.

The IFA charged product itself isnt bad. There is better in my opinion though but it has a good enough fund range with a enough external funds to build a decent portfolio.

Somewhere on this site in the last 24 hours someone has even suggested that SW may be on its way to being another NR ,

SW is wholly owned by LloydsTSB. One of the most financially secure banks there is. When lending went down the pan in the 90s, the banks relied heavily on their insurance company arms. They became the major source of income at that time as lending was dead.

. As regards you asking if Im likely to understand the performance sites, Im capable of such basics, as noting quartiles , and the 1,3,5 year performance and the quality of the fund manager etc if its rated .

Past performance doesnt matter. Its future potential that does. Some of the best low risk funds that are likely to do well in the coming years would have seen pretty rubbish performance in the league tables over the last 2 years. You need to understand why a fund hasnt done well.

For example, the last few years have seen higher risk funds outperform lower risk. Not all funds in the sector have the same risk so a fund could be at the top because it is higher risk and it was the right time to be in that fund. The lower risk ones may be lower down but they may be more consistent.

ANGLICANPAT

Its going to be a long road I think to knowing what Im doing !! --But thanks for the pointers Dunstoneh.