Micro Investing

Anthorn wrote: »

Perhaps I worded my post wrongly: I actually posted what in my own personal experience of the cheapest I can think of which is HL because I use them. Then I quoted what I personalyt regard as middle of the road S&S ISA in terms of charges which is Halifax. To my mind that post of mine was therefore a fair comparison. Pretty obvious though if you actually read my post.

But I wrote a quick forum post and not a scientific paper ROFL

But your post is mainly pedantry: Where are your examples and links?

You're research is pretty poor if you think hl are cheap, they are often cited as the expensive end of the diy market, certainly on larger sums.

Halifax is a flat fee broker so significantly cheaper for larger portfolios, particularly if you don't trade much.

You have to come up with a fairly unique and frankly unwise set of criteria to demonstrate that micro investing under a set of circumstances is wise.

Anthorn wrote: »

Well hello there bigadaj: I expected you in this thread long before now.

Where did I say Micro Investing is wise and why would I want to do that? I'm commenting on Moneybox which is actually an alternative for those who don't have an alternative. Read my previous post.

The rest of your post really is only fit to be ignored since it only repeats what has been previously posted and replied to.

You really should stop posting the utter nonsense you do.

Money box is a gimmick and you seem to love those, just stop recommending them to newbies who know no better.

The best analogy is probably with transport. There's a long running thread on bangernomcis on the motoring board, and it's personal choice what car you run.

However if you are very strapped then public transport is the only option, you can't afford to run a car.

Similarly the only use for his product is for people who simply don't have enough for investment, they should be saving through high interest current accounts and regular savers until they have a reasonable sum to invest, if you only have pennies and teh charges are in pounds then you'll never get rich.

Anthorn wrote: »

But I wrote a quick forum post and not a scientific paper ROFL

But your post is mainly pedantry: Where are your examples and links?

You were quoted examples on the other Moneybox thread. You didn't seem to get it. It's a chore spending time and effort writing things that someone doesn't want to hear.

Anthorn wrote: »

Good grief, the dogs really have been called out. But perhaps we need some new dogs because it's the same ones every time.

Yes, it seems that unsurprisingly the forum views on Moneybox have not really changed since the last moneybox thread. It's just you saying how they are good for your needs because you invest £30, £50, £80 a month or whatever with them at higher cost than mainstream providers would charge for that amount of money, and a number of other people mentioning that it is a waste of money.

Effectively you are paying extra fees for the 'entertainment' of having a firm electronically access your bank statements and pull a specific number of pounds and pence from your account based on activity, instead of just having a standing order or once-a-month direct debit for a fixed affordable amount with the occasional manual topup.

Yet again pedantry: If you don't agree with my post then you must have one or alternatives but you don't quote them. If you don't have alternatives then you cannot possibly disagree!

There is no point parading the alternatives in front of you again when you dismissed them out of hand last time because of not liking to be proven wrong.


One

I'm moving on now so don't expect me to reply to further posts.

Two,

Anthorn wrote: »

My last in this thread anyway so don't bother.

Three? :hello:

Anthorn wrote: »

But hey I know I'm wasting my time trying to teach someone who already knows everything!

Bye bye, over and out.

Ah not quite:

Anthorn wrote: »

Well hello there bigadaj: I expected you in this thread long before now.

Where did I say Micro Investing is wise and why would I want to do that? I'm commenting on Moneybox

The thread is called Micro Investing. The opening post was from someone considering micro investing their 20p a time or whatever through Money Box. You have said you participate in Micro Investing using the stocks and shares variant of Money Box, investing for example 41p when you bought petrol on Thursday. Or smaller amounts at other times.

You went on to say that "personally, you squirrel away at least £80 per month almost entirely from rounding up purchases to the next full pound". So you are investing in chunks of 1p to 99p.

And now you are asking where it was that you said that Micro Investing is wise and why you would want to do it? Well, if you have at least £80 a month to invest it is not really very wise, because there are cheaper solutions, but you are doing it, and have said you like doing it, and you recommend it. Are you now saying it is not wise after all? Or are you confused about what the thread is about?

The rest of your post really is only fit to be ignored since it only repeats what has been previously posted and replied to.

I don't think you have come up with any original content since your previous posts on the other money box thread. You are just repeating your reasons for doing what you do and trying to deflect the ideas that this Moneybox platform is an unnecessarily expensive way for someone like you to do what you do.

Whereas if someone else repeats something they said on another thread or earlier in this one you will say they are repeating themselves but then also complain because they are not posting examples and links to the variety of other platforms which have been highlighted to you as being cheaper options before, even though you would dismiss them as repetitious.

Meanwhile you are coming up with ever more flowery insults to characterise a variety of sensible comments as 'pedantry', 'mindless verbal diarrhea' etc. So I expect there are some people who would take a look at the comment: "The rest of your post really is only fit to be ignored since it only repeats what has been previously posted and replied to" and think it could easily have been directed *at* you rather than written *by* you.

Tip: Next have a go at pulling to pieces the funds I'm investing in.

Why bother wasting time on you? You only want an argument, even though you have said several times you are not going to speak further on the subject. At £80 a month it doesn't really matter what you invest in as long as it is reasonably well diversified and as cheap as possible for the asset types you want.

Anthorn wrote: »

And here's a few reviews of Moneybox:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-3777763/Moneybox-app-encourages-investing-rounding-everyday-spending.html

https://www.ft.com/content/14dc379a-6ac7-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f

http://www.techworld.com/apps/moneybox-app-that-hopes-make-it-radically-easier-save-invest-3647796/

Thanks for the links. To save the OP some time in clicking through - the first two are not reviews of the product.

The thisismoney / daily mail one is talking about a new service just launched (without any hands on experience of it, so only written from the press release, so won't tell you anything the company doesn't tell you itself about what it aims to do)

The FT one is from a few weeks earlier so is simply talking about the new service that's due to be released (so again no hands-on experience and everything about what the product is designed to do will have come from the press releases or the accompanying quotes from the two founders). In the interests of balance, it does have some third-party observations from a consumer group, who say:

“I think any innovation that encourages people to adopt the savings habit is welcome. However, I can’t help thinking that the fees will take too big a chunk out of the returns for those who only use the ‘rounding up’ of purchases option,” said Andrew Hagger, founder of consumer consultancy MoneyComms.

“Obviously if you save more, the charges are less onerous and it’s probably a decent entry level option for those wanting to start investing in equities. But if I only had a small sum to put aside each month, I’d probably stick with cash. A regular savings account, available with some bank current accounts, can pay up to 6 per cent interest.”

I'd agree with that quote.

It is fine for a little nibble which won't accumulate anything substantial, and is relatively harmless if it gets people interested in investing - as "Plus" said further up this thread - although using it for minimal amount such as one or two tenners a month will find the performance crippled by the £1pm charge. While larger amounts would not be crippled but they would clearly be better by going through a cheaper provider.

The comment in the FT article referred to 6% interest on bank current accounts, but that's now a little out of date and at the moment the going rate for instant access regular savings at somewhere like Nationwide up to £500pm is 5% (also available on their current account).

The third of the 'reviews' links is a technology site rather than a financial products site so it doesn't compare the offering to any other financial products in terms of its usefulness as an investting tool or value for money. It does however say that the person put away £70 over eight weeks which was in line with the average projection from the company of £36pm, and that the app was intuitive and transparent. So it seems to do what it says on the tin, though time will tell whether the company has the financial strength to break even and eventually start making profits and still be in business in five to ten years.

Once you are putting in £30+ a month with it being taken in 4 or 5 weekly direct debits over the month, you might as well set up one direct debit for £30 to a provider who doesn't want a pound a month of fixed fees and will offer a lower platform charge and a greater range of investment options. Additional spare money from time to time could be put in as and when. Unfortunately HMRC only allows you to contribute to one S&S ISA in a tax year - so by doing (say) £400 a year into Moneybox via your weekly activity, the remaining £19,600 of annual S&S ISA allowance can only be used for Moneybox, and the rest of your investing would have to forego the tax wrapper.

Overall, I use it, I find it useful and I've explained why I find it useful and that's on-topic. I'm not going to stop using it just because its very simple concept is beyond the understanding of a few people.

It's a free country and if you like it there is no need to stop. You mentioned that you do at least £80 a month now. Presumably fed by four or five weekly direct debits of haphazard amounts determined by Moneybox looking at your bank statement. The smarter thing to do if you can afford that level of investment is simply to set up a direct debit for that £80 each month (or some lower amount if you'd prefer to be more cautious) with a mainstream provider with lower fees.

Of course you don't need to take the advice, you are your own free man. But just recognise that the reason you're getting the advice is not because the "very simple concept is beyond the understanding of a few people". We understand the concept quite well. We are just on a money-saving expert site, so the standard response to a new product is "what does it do that can't already be done more efficiently by cheaper products".

It's true that the cheaper products do not hit you with the direct debit five times a month for haphazard amounts with the option for a top up; merely a fixed amount with the option for a top up. And the cheaper products will not halve your monthly investment when you change your morning coffee from a £2.10 Americano to a £2.60 cappuccino and the 'change' being invested drops from 90p per working day to 40p per working day. The cheaper traditional products just plug away with the standard direct debits and don't reduce them when your shopping reduces to 80 transactions a month or increase them when your shopping increases to 160 transactions a month. Other than 'gimmick' there is no real reason why those pretty-uncontrollable variations should be a feature of an investing plan.

The OP or others might find it useful to look at the earlier Moneybox forum thread from shortly after the app's launch, which was referenced earlier. It outlines the views of a few forum regulars (including myself and Anthorn).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5522077

The banter is a little milder in that one, Anthorn only makes two accusations that others are spouting 'verbal diarrhea' compared to the three on this thread, and no wikipedia links.

The broad consensus from people who weren't Anthorn on that thread could be summed up by a post from Malthusian, in response to a comment from Anthorn to the effect that all he saw on the thread was verbal diarrhea and nothing constructive:

Malthusian wrote: »

The OP wanted views on MoneyBox from people with experience in investing. The majority view from experienced investors is "use a lower cost and more flexible alternative" and "forget about rounding up and save an amount that actually matters". If the OP takes these views on board they'll lose less money to charges, their investments will have higher growth potential and they may find that they are better off in the future because they decided to save a meaningful amount for the long term, instead of signing up to have a few pennies taken out of their bank account and thinking "job done". That sounds pretty constructive to me.