Fund managers
Options
Comments
-
And then you ignore the fact that many interesting areas dont have trackers and dont have a meaningful index either, Global Technology is an example. Is it wrong to invest in them?
I will only invest in technology companies where I have PERSONALLY done a sanity check of their technology. I'm sitting on enough tech stock to buy two average houses, yet have put in only enough to buy a bottom of the range BMW.
Maybe I ought to start my own fund? Loadsamoney whether I gain or lose! Naaa! That would make me sloppy.
Of course, I don't this up as an example of great stockpicking, as other buys either wobbled along or failed.
Buy stocks you understand.
Buy trackers that the market understands,
Buy ITs or (if you really must!) funds in sectors where no-one has a clue.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
you mentioned you had one fund that has done well to further your argument. i'm using one share that i have to further my argument.
Yes but I am not saying that people should ALWAYS go for active management because of this one fund. YOU ARE saying always go for X because of this one Y.
For example, you say people should only go for trackers because active fund managers pay so much. You choose funds based upon your objectives and if you feel as though that area and fund manager will do well then you buy an active fund. If you feel as though the area hasn't got a lot of growth areas and you don't feel as though someone could pick the right stocks, then you will pick a tracker - which is perfectly fine.
What is not fine is making sweeping generalisation statements such as "Only go for trackers, all active management funds are bad." or "Stock picking is always better than active management.".
edit - I am fed up of repeating myself to you because you don't seem to listen. I will say this once more.
There is no one size fits all investment. Some investments in each type will do better, and worse, than investments in other types. There is no winner. To rule out a whole investment type because some do worse is wrong. If you do your research you will buy into investments based upon your objectives, you may win, you may lose. But to keep a closed mind is not the way of investing.0 -
TATE bottomed at £2.36, they are now 2.82 times that. 'about tripled' indeed. On top of that they have paid 29.7p in dividends, which with the capital growth comes to very close to triple the bottom. Seems a fair statement to me. Why clutch at straws?
What has been quoted is a share that has tripled in total return from its lowest price over the past 5 years. What has not been demonstrated is any proof of informed stockpicking.Living for tomorrow might mean that you survive the day after.
It is always different this time. The only thing that is the same is the outcome.
Portfolios are like personalities - one that is balanced is usually preferable.
0 -
edit - I am fed up of repeating myself to you because you don't seem to listen. I will say this once more.
There is no one size fits all investment. Some investments in each type will do better, and worse, than investments in other types. There is no winner. To rule out a whole investment type because some do worse is wrong. If you do your research you will buy into investments based upon your objectives, you may win, you may lose. But to keep a closed mind is not the way of investing.
i do listen, it's just your arguments are poor.
say there are 10 shares in a benchmark. the performance of them varies from rubbish to brilliant. but say overall the benchmark goes up 5%. if the shares in the benchmark are owned by unit trusts with annual charges of 3% it means the average UT will return 2%. Agreed?
So how can UTs add value? Of course some of them might return more than 5%, but overall the average return will be far lower than the benchmark.
Virtually all academic evidence suggests that the performance of UTs is down to luck and any outperformance does not last. People are paying good money for not a lot in return.
so why should I invest in something with the odds stacked against me from the very start?
Of course if you have some academic evidence that UT performance is down to skill I might reconsider my opinion, however so far no one has produced any academic evidence......0 -
Of course if you have some academic evidence that UT performance is down to skill I might reconsider my opinion, however so far no one has produced any academic evidence......
Of course if you have some evidence that your share selections are down to skill I might reconsider my opinion, however so far you have not produced any evidence......Living for tomorrow might mean that you survive the day after.
It is always different this time. The only thing that is the same is the outcome.
Portfolios are like personalities - one that is balanced is usually preferable.
0 -
Ark_Welder wrote: »Of course if you have some evidence that your share selections are down to skill I might reconsider my opinion, however so far you have not produced any evidence......
LOL!!! how can i provide academic evidence that MY share selection is down to skill? ROFL!!0 -
LOL!!! how can i provide academic evidence that MY share selection is down to skill? ROFL!!
'Academic' was not mentioned in my post, just 'evidence'.Living for tomorrow might mean that you survive the day after.
It is always different this time. The only thing that is the same is the outcome.
Portfolios are like personalities - one that is balanced is usually preferable.
0 -
OK guys, out of interest, of those arguing the active/passive sides, do any of you actually have access to tools such as FE Analytics to put your money where your mouth is?
Are you aware of the different measures of risk vs return and how they can be tracked over time?
The results are astounding, and there are managers who both outperform benchmarks and(importantly) do it with less volatility (measured by way of standard deviation) than the given benchmark.
Darkpool - you obviously don't know how to measure risk/reward or you wouldn't come out with things like this.
You CAN objectively analyse your risk/reward, using all sorts of ratios.
But I very much doubt you either have the inclination or the intelligence to do so.I am an IFA, but nothing I say on this forum constitutes financial advice. Always draw your own conclusions and always do your own research.0 -
-
Ark_Welder wrote: »'Academic' was not mentioned in my post, just 'evidence'.
LOL!!! you were put on the earth to amuse!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards