How to compare Lloyds IPS against other investements

jamesd

moneybelle wrote: »

Could members suggest how I can compare recent performance with similar products, and non-managed funds such as index trackers. Please post the relevant links.

Lots of comments about LLoyds's service but not about investment comparisons. Here are some:

Trustnet for all but shares and ETFs
Morningstar as Trustnet but adds ETFs and shares.

munk

I also just came across another good article for you re discretionary portfolio management when catching up on Saturday's Telegraph Money section... hopefully the article is up on the telegraph site... doh, no it's not. There's a great table comparing the prices of different discretionary portfolio managers, minimum investments, initial charges, commission, etc.

Have a search maybe on the telegraph site, perhaps I missed it. The article was titled 'Balancing your portfolio is the best way to survive market uncertainty' by Stephen Ellis, published Saturday 23rd Feb.

moneybelle

munk wrote: »

I also just came across another good article for you re discretionary portfolio management when catching up on Saturday's Telegraph Money section... hopefully the article is up on the telegraph site... doh, no it's not. There's a great table comparing the prices of different discretionary portfolio managers, minimum investments, initial charges, commission, etc.

Have a search maybe on the telegraph site, perhaps I missed it. The article was titled 'Balancing your portfolio is the best way to survive market uncertainty' by Stephen Ellis, published Saturday 23rd Feb.

I haven't yet found that article; may have to wait, but this article is on a similar theme

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/24/cmportfolio24.xml

moneybelle

Side question; what protection is in place for investor in the event an IFA or Fund Holder decides to do a bunk with investors money?

meester

moneybelle wrote: »

Side question; what protection is in place for investor in the event an IFA or Fund Holder decides to do a bunk with investors money?

The advisor should never receive your money. He simply advises where to send it. In terms of the FUnd Holder, the money is held in a trustee account, e.g., if Invesco Perpetual are the fund holder they might use RBS to hold the money. Even if Invesco went bust, it doesn't affect your money in trust. There are quite significant safeguards.

dunstonh

moneybelle wrote: »

Side question; what protection is in place for investor in the event an IFA or Fund Holder decides to do a bunk with investors money?

Most IFAs are not authorised to hold client money. So, when you write the cheque, it is payable to the provider (platform, fund supermarket etc).

As meester says, even if the platform goes under, you hold the units in the fund not platform so as long as the portfolio is diversified you really have no worries about this.

munk

moneybelle wrote: »

I haven't yet found that article; may have to wait, but this article is on a similar theme

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/24/cmportfolio24.xml

In the article I read in Saturday's Telegraph they did mention that it was a monthly feature they had - kind of a 'competition' between different discretionary managers to see who would make the most from the money given to them (paper money/virtual). Looks like that link you pasted is one of the earlier monthly articles, will go read now thanks for that.

EDIT: On the second page of that article you linked to is the table that made me think of you whilst I was reading - comparing various factors for each of the discretionary managers like charges, commission, minimum investment etc. Good find

dunstonh

Looking at those tables, it is amazing how much equity content HL have for a low risk investor. Although it may depend on what they were asked to supply. I typically work to 10 risk scales and have sector allocations for each of those 10. Anything upto 5 is cautious. Just varying degrees. Lets say these companies work to similar (as they more or less will), one may have supplied the allocations of their number 2 portfolio and another may have supplied their number 5 portfolio. Especially as the article suggests that we only work to 3 risk scales (although may adjust within those three). I dont know anyone that works to just 3. That would be crazy and inappropriate.

meester

dunstonh wrote: »

Looking at those tables, it is amazing how much equity content HL have for a low risk investor. Although it may depend on what they were asked to supply. I typically work to 10 risk scales and have sector allocations for each of those 10. Anything upto 5 is cautious. Just varying degrees. Lets say these companies work to similar (as they more or less will), one may have supplied the allocations of their number 2 portfolio and another may have supplied their number 5 portfolio. Especially as the article suggests that we only work to 3 risk scales (although may adjust within those three). I dont know anyone that works to just 3. That would be crazy and inappropriate.

It does seem quite high.

My cynical side tells me that they make far more money from equities, so they recommend this approach.

That said, I would be interested to see their actual selections.

dunstonh

meester wrote: »

It does seem quite high.

My cynical side tells me that they make far more money from equities, so they recommend this approach.

That said, I would be interested to see their actual selections.

I think its the article not comparing like for like to be honest.

Complaints come in when markets drop (not when they go up). I cannot see how you could justify over 50% exposure to stockmarket to a low risk investor. You would be waiting for an upheld decision.

I think the spread shows some defensive, some low, some low/medium. Portfolios are built to the individual so there is going to be some margin of error in there from that as well.