We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Corporate bond.Retail C
Comments
-
yes, but at least they don't claim a 6% interest rate and then sneakily eat away at your capital...
all i'm saying is with banks, what u see is what u get. regardless of the arcane inner workings of the bank's finances, you know that a 6%pa savings acount will grow by precisely 6% in a year.
the same cannot be said for bond funds.0 -
yes, but at least they don't claim a 6% interest rate and then sneakily eat away at your capital...
I have never seen that claim from a fund manager either. Sure some highlight their target yield but they dont try and make out that it is the only part of the return.
I dont see the difference. The bank interest rate can change and you dont know what they are making from it. WIth bonds the yield and returns can change but you know the charges are consistent. You dont pick one over the other because of charges because you cannot compare one with the other.
the same cannot be said for bond funds.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
ok, well i see your point of view, even if i don't agree...
maybe a good solution to make things simpler for retail investors would be to introduce regulations that meant that bond fund managers were had to declare the yield after deductions (or effective yield if the charges are from capital) as their headline yield.
just as an example, baillie gifford should be given due credit as the already state quite clearly on their factsheets both the distributuon yield, and the underlying yield, the latter being the distribution yield minus any charges (but still do not go so far as to use the underlying yield as their headline rate)0 -
ok, well i see your point of view, even if i don't agree...
I can see yours as well but I think its a problem when you compare implicit and explicit charging structures. You cannot compare like for like.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
yep i see that.
sorry to be argumentative! its just that i really have it in for bond funds at present, cos just to match cash returns, one has to take much more risk in a bond fund... which seems like a wholly unattractive situation to me...0 -
I've seen your other thread on that and will keep the performance bits on that one so we dont get two threads saying the same. However, you wont be surprised to know I partially disagree with you
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards