As an example and sorry about the formatting, cut and paste;
Equities
United Kingdom24.7% iShares FTSE 10020.4% Vanguard FTSE 2504.3% North America31.1% iShares S&P 500 GBP-hedged14.8% db x-trackers MSCI USA9.8% iShares MSCI USA Small Cap4.7% UBS MSCI Canada GBP-hedged1.8% Japan5.2% db x-trackers MSCI Japan GBP-hedged2.6% Vanguard FTSE Japan1.8% iShares MSCI Japan Small Cap0.8% Pacific Ex-Japan2.1% iShares Core MSCI Pacific Ex Japan2.1% Europe Ex-UK9.8% db x-trackers MSCI EMU GBP-hedged3.9% UBS MSCI Switzerland 20/35 GBP-hedged1.0% Vanguard FTSE Developed Europe ex UK4.0% iShares MSCI EMU Small Cap0.9% Emerging Markets5.8% iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI5.8%
Bonds
United Kingdom12.3% Lyxor FTSE Actuaries UK Gilts12.3% Emerging Markets4.1% UBS Emerging Markets GBP-hedged4.1% North America4.6% PIMCO Short-Term High Yield GBP-hedged4.6%
Cash 0.3%
Thanks.
All I would say is its a quite an adventurous portfolio. Almost 80% in equities & no property. Not for the faint hearted.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
I would imagine that "research" is exactly what @Huskaris did. It's kind of what a uni degree trains you to do.
Anybody with any interest can "tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers". Such information is easily available. Indeed when it comes to dogs, BestInvest have a pithy annual review they call Spot the Dog.
My understanding is that the jury is out on the overall question Huskaris addressed. Some suggest that the active vs passive argument has a variable result according to the overall global economic environment over any given time period.
The there is the matter of fees, which Huskaris might not have been able to include in his study. They nibble away at returns from active funds. Fortunately now we have disruptors such as Vanguard whose fees for passive funds can make a significant difference to real returns to investors, and which need to be factored in to the evaluation.
When I first became active with funds, late 80s early 90s, funds had a bid-offer spread. There was a buying price and a selling price and the difference was 5%. In other words a fund had to gain 5% before you were even showing any gain at all. What was the justification for that? None whatsoever, just fill your boots time for the industry, including IFAs. In those days, evaluating performance was daunting for an individual. One day my IFA briefly showed me a computer programme which allowed him to call up a programme which did the job, replete with graphs. I guess my eyes lit up when I saw it, he never showed it me again. Nowadays, its all there on the web, for free to all.
The more individuals realise that this isn't difficult to manage themselves, the more transparent the market will become. Of course there will still be a role for IFAs, with those who have neither the time nor inclination to immerse themselves in the data, but IFAs will have to increasingly demonstrate that they really add value for their fees.
As an example and sorry about the formatting, cut and paste;
Equities
United Kingdom24.7% iShares FTSE 10020.4% Vanguard FTSE 2504.3% North America31.1% iShares S&P 500 GBP-hedged14.8% db x-trackers MSCI USA9.8% iShares MSCI USA Small Cap4.7% UBS MSCI Canada GBP-hedged1.8% Japan5.2% db x-trackers MSCI Japan GBP-hedged2.6% Vanguard FTSE Japan1.8% iShares MSCI Japan Small Cap0.8% Pacific Ex-Japan2.1% iShares Core MSCI Pacific Ex Japan2.1% Europe Ex-UK9.8% db x-trackers MSCI EMU GBP-hedged3.9% UBS MSCI Switzerland 20/35 GBP-hedged1.0% Vanguard FTSE Developed Europe ex UK4.0% iShares MSCI EMU Small Cap0.9% Emerging Markets5.8% iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI5.8%
Bonds
United Kingdom12.3% Lyxor FTSE Actuaries UK Gilts12.3% Emerging Markets4.1% UBS Emerging Markets GBP-hedged4.1% North America4.6% PIMCO Short-Term High Yield GBP-hedged4.6%
Cash 0.3%
Thanks.
All I would say is its a quite an adventurous portfolio. Almost 80% in equities & no property. Not for the faint hearted.
I think it all depends how you answer the 20 or so risk questions, I went highest risk on every answer, suspect if you didn't you'd get a very different outcome. Agree it's not the cheapest platform. I pay 0.25% with Fidelity, Nutmeg on this one is 0.45% or 0.25% if over 100k.
I'm just interested in trying it out, have only done a general investment account (as ISA is with fidelity) £500 in and £100 a month, same with Wealthify and Wealthsimple. Just a bit of fun.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
Well what we did was look at actively managed portfolios and plotted all of the alphas together AND took into account fees for the funds, and also looked at various methods to determine statistical significance in our findings.
Active showed no statistically significant difference to passive. Like you said yourself, you will get funds that a)outperform their peers and b) outperform the market but that comes at the expense of the possibility of being under the market.
Effectively, you are paying someone money for volatility.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
Well what we did was look at actively managed portfolios and plotted all of the alphas together AND took into account fees for the funds, and also looked at various methods to determine statistical significance in our findings.
Active showed no statistically significant difference to passive. Like you said yourself, you will get funds that a)outperform their peers and b) outperform the market but that comes at the expense of the possibility of being under the market.
Effectively, you are paying someone money for volatility.
Fair enough. But over the long term a constistanly top quartile, actively managed fund, will always outperform a tracker. Yes, you might pay an extra 0.5 -0.75pa in fund charges but this will be outweighed by the extra 10%-20% growth. I've yet to see an ETF or tracker fund be in the top 10% over this period. I'd much prefer to invest in Bailiee Giffords American fund than any US tracker fund you'd care to mention.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
Well what we did was look at actively managed portfolios and plotted all of the alphas together AND took into account fees for the funds, and also looked at various methods to determine statistical significance in our findings.
Active showed no statistically significant difference to passive. Like you said yourself, you will get funds that a)outperform their peers and b) outperform the market but that comes at the expense of the possibility of being under the market.
Effectively, you are paying someone money for volatility.
Fair enough. But over the long term a constistanly top quartile, actively managed fund, will always outperform a tracker. Yes, you might pay an extra 0.5 -0.75pa in fund charges but this will be outweighed by the extra 10%-20% growth. I've yet to see an ETF or tracker fund be in the top 10% over this period. I'd much prefer to invest in Bailiee Giffords American fund than any US tracker fund you'd care to mention.
Many of the top rated funds ask 1%, especially if the specialise. You really don't know that?
Any advice on Pensions ? I currently have 20 years service with the Civil service , I was thinking of topping it up by £100 a month seeing as the usual ISA and saving interest rates are so low . any advise would be appreciated .
Any advice on Pensions ? I currently have 20 years service with the Civil service , I was thinking of topping it up by £100 a month seeing as the usual ISA and saving interest rates are so low . any advise would be appreciated .
Depends what type you have. When you talk about "topping up" do you mean by way of a specific AVC scheme that they run or simply increasing the level of your contributions (Which is not always possible). I assume you're not still in the final salary scheme. That being the case a stocks & shares ISA might be a thought.....or even a private pension (depending on whether you are close to the Lifetime Allowance or might trigger an Annual Allowance tax charge)
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
Well what we did was look at actively managed portfolios and plotted all of the alphas together AND took into account fees for the funds, and also looked at various methods to determine statistical significance in our findings.
Active showed no statistically significant difference to passive. Like you said yourself, you will get funds that a)outperform their peers and b) outperform the market but that comes at the expense of the possibility of being under the market.
Effectively, you are paying someone money for volatility.
Fair enough. But over the long term a constistanly top quartile, actively managed fund, will always outperform a tracker. Yes, you might pay an extra 0.5 -0.75pa in fund charges but this will be outweighed by the extra 10%-20% growth. I've yet to see an ETF or tracker fund be in the top 10% over this period. I'd much prefer to invest in Bailiee Giffords American fund than any US tracker fund you'd care to mention.
Many of the top rated funds ask 1%, especially if the specialise. You really don't know that?
Yes I do thanks. The figures I used & you so kindly highlighted are on top of what you might pay for an ETF or a tracker.
Any advice on Pensions ? I currently have 20 years service with the Civil service , I was thinking of topping it up by £100 a month seeing as the usual ISA and saving interest rates are so low . any advise would be appreciated .
Depends what type you have. When you talk about "topping up" do you mean by way of a specific AVC scheme that they run or simply increasing the level of your contributions (Which is not always possible). I assume you're not still in the final salary scheme. That being the case a stocks & shares ISA might be a thought.....or even a private pension (depending on whether you are close to the Lifetime Allowance or might trigger an Annual Allowance tax charge)
You need to seek the advice of an IFA...
Yes , increase the amount by AVC , I am in the final salary scheme .
If you're if the Final Salary Scheme then I assume you are less than 10 years from retirement - that being the case £100pm into an AVC may not be worth it imo. Unless you max out your ISA allowance every year then you might want to consider a stocks & shares ISA instead. Although you don't get tax relief going in you wont be paying tax on any "income" when you retire. Also a lot more flexible. Seeing as the FS scheme is non-transferable, is the AVC too ?? ie, at retirement would you HAVE to take it as income or would you be able to transfer it to a flexi-access pension, which then could be left to dependants etc. (my answer would be I very much doubt it)
No one can give you any precise advice as to what to do as it also depends on your situation - do you have a family /mortgage / other debts ?? Your current age, when you want to retire etc. What you pension is likely to be & are you close to the Lifetime Allowance ?? So many imponderables.
I've been investing all my family money since 1991.
In 2018, we finished with a net return on +1.3%. I am pretty happy with that given the S&P500 was -5%, bonds were -2%, gold was -2%, oil was -20%.
I've left the portfolio, which provides income to mom, as I had it for all of 2018....
US Stocks: 25% (no tech) Europe & Asia stocks: 5% Emerging Markets: 0% 1-4yr US Gvt Treasuries: 50% Corporate Bonds: 0% High Yield Bonds: 0% Foreign Gvt Bonds: 3% Gold: 5% General Commodities: 2% Cash: 10%
Pretty much a fortress portfolio. I thought the dollar would own 2018. I am less sure about 2019 but am not taking any chances. I am usually a global investor but have been pulling back from non-US stocks for 2 years. I usually keep a balanced portfolio with 60% stocks but I feel stocks are over-valued lately and thus reduced it last year.
Mom won't miss much if stocks go up a lot, but given she takes out 5% of the portfolio per year for retirement income, she can't afford a sharp drop.
I'd also say that 0.75% AMC /platform charge (call it what you will) is not that good. The main couple of providers I use are 0.4 max(0.20% if you invest over 25k) You could even build in my charge (usually 0.5% but to match theirs I would do 0.35% for the lower amounts). For that you will get my 30 yrs experience & regular review meetings. I don't usually use ETFs (but wounld do if you wanted a cheap option).... much prefer spending another 0.5%pa and get active management from the top names such as Baillie Gifford, Invesco, JP Morgan etc.
A good chunk of my degree (8 years ago so obviously a bit rusty) was looking at ETFs and actively managed funds, and the conclusion that we largely came to was that actively managed did not tend to outperform the market (and therefore ETFs).
Depends if you research the market or not. I can tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers. In the same sectors there will be activrly managed funds which are complete dogs. An ETF / tracker / passive fun will simply track/mirror the sector it's in.
Well what we did was look at actively managed portfolios and plotted all of the alphas together AND took into account fees for the funds, and also looked at various methods to determine statistical significance in our findings.
Active showed no statistically significant difference to passive. Like you said yourself, you will get funds that a)outperform their peers and b) outperform the market but that comes at the expense of the possibility of being under the market.
Effectively, you are paying someone money for volatility.
Fair enough. But over the long term a constistanly top quartile, actively managed fund, will always outperform a tracker. Yes, you might pay an extra 0.5 -0.75pa in fund charges but this will be outweighed by the extra 10%-20% growth. I've yet to see an ETF or tracker fund be in the top 10% over this period. I'd much prefer to invest in Bailiee Giffords American fund than any US tracker fund you'd care to mention.
Many of the top rated funds ask 1%, especially if the specialise. You really don't know that?
Yes I do thanks. The figures I used & you so kindly highlighted are on top of what you might pay for an ETF or a tracker.
Oh Ok, you are arguing that tracker might charge say 0.3% and a fund like Fundsmith Equity charges 1%, so it's a net extra 0.7%? If so fair enough, and I apologise for misunderstanding your comment.
If you're if the Final Salary Scheme then I assume you are less than 10 years from retirement - that being the case £100pm into an AVC may not be worth it imo. Unless you max out your ISA allowance every year then you might want to consider a stocks & shares ISA instead. Although you don't get tax relief going in you wont be paying tax on any "income" when you retire. Also a lot more flexible. Seeing as the FS scheme is non-transferable, is the AVC too ?? ie, at retirement would you HAVE to take it as income or would you be able to transfer it to a flexi-access pension, which then could be left to dependants etc. (my answer would be I very much doubt it)
No one can give you any precise advice as to what to do as it also depends on your situation - do you have a family /mortgage / other debts ?? Your current age, when you want to retire etc. What you pension is likely to be & are you close to the Lifetime Allowance ?? So many imponderables.
Cheers , a lot to think about , thanks for the Info .
My first one cost £175 and the one I got last xmas was £500. The shredded banksy at sothebys in december cost £500 back in 2005 and just sold for over a million 13 years later.
You can also fly to his hotel in bethlehem and buy a £500 sculpture that sells for a grand instantly on ebay.
Thought this thread would be the best place to ask; regarding IFA fees..
I am a late comer to investments but having turned 50 and having no private pension, have decided i should get involved. I met my first ever ifa face to face for a free consultation and liked him. However 3% on any lump investments, and 1% p.a if services retained seems steep and encourages me to shop around. E.g. if I take up my full isa allowance through him/his firm, that is £600 in fees.
I appreciate there's the upside (mostly based on having access to types of ISAs I couldn't access myself), and I don't mind paying someone else to do the active management of my investments for now. However I am feeling pressured to get underway in this tax year, and where I'd normally like to do my own research, I won't have much time between now and end of March, hence wondering what you guys think of the 3 and 1 % charging rates from your experience.
I'm an IFA & my usual charge is 3% initial plus 0.5% ongoing. For a £20k ISA I often charge £500 just to keep the numbers simple. For some of my longstanding clients with ISA "pots" in excess of £250k I'm charging 0.25%.
The company I work for suggest we should charge as much as 5% upfront on investments under £100k.....and still charge 1% ongoing !! Scandalous in my view. Lots of advisors are charging 0.75% ongoing & I know I'm in the minority with my fellow colleagues to charge 0.5%.
There will be others on here that will post you can do it yourself.....why pay an advisor a fee.....just do the research & choose the funds yourself. To me it's more than just which funds to choose. First thing is asset allocations.....how much in equities & how much in bonds. Is the UK still worth investing in whilst Brexit is still going on. What about the US slowdown ? Corporate or Government bonds ?
Thought this thread would be the best place to ask; regarding IFA fees..
I am a late comer to investments but having turned 50 and having no private pension, have decided i should get involved. I met my first ever ifa face to face for a free consultation and liked him. However 3% on any lump investments, and 1% p.a if services retained seems steep and encourages me to shop around. E.g. if I take up my full isa allowance through him/his firm, that is £600 in fees.
I appreciate there's the upside (mostly based on having access to types of ISAs I couldn't access myself), and I don't mind paying someone else to do the active management of my investments for now. However I am feeling pressured to get underway in this tax year, and where I'd normally like to do my own research, I won't have much time between now and end of March, hence wondering what you guys think of the 3 and 1 % charging rates from your experience.
If you are worried about time just open a cash ISA and put the £20k in, you can always then at a later date transfer it to a S&S ISA, IFA managed or otherwise.
That said, you mention no private pension, is it a pension or ISA you want.
Pension and ISA yes, more so the former but wanted to get the lump invested asap in one or both. However Brexit is causing me extra hesitation, naturally. A shorter term fixed rate ISA would alleviate that and give me the time I need to shop around.
Thanks for the numbers @golfaddick and other points made. I'd definitely need the professional input but keen to learn for myself in parallel. Octopus investments has been recommended to me in the past and I'll probably have a poke around there in due course too.
Comments
All I would say is its a quite an adventurous portfolio. Almost 80% in equities & no property. Not for the faint hearted.
Anybody with any interest can "tell you the best UK, US, European & Asian funds over the past 3 & 5 years which have outperformed their peers". Such information is easily available. Indeed when it comes to dogs, BestInvest have a pithy annual review they call Spot the Dog.
My understanding is that the jury is out on the overall question Huskaris addressed. Some suggest that the active vs passive argument has a variable result according to the overall global economic environment over any given time period.
The there is the matter of fees, which Huskaris might not have been able to include in his study. They nibble away at returns from active funds. Fortunately now we have disruptors such as Vanguard whose fees for passive funds can make a significant difference to real returns to investors, and which need to be factored in to the evaluation.
When I first became active with funds, late 80s early 90s, funds had a bid-offer spread. There was a buying price and a selling price and the difference was 5%. In other words a fund had to gain 5% before you were even showing any gain at all. What was the justification for that? None whatsoever, just fill your boots time for the industry, including IFAs. In those days, evaluating performance was daunting for an individual. One day my IFA briefly showed me a computer programme which allowed him to call up a programme which did the job, replete with graphs. I guess my eyes lit up when I saw it, he never showed it me again. Nowadays, its all there on the web, for free to all.
The more individuals realise that this isn't difficult to manage themselves, the more transparent the market will become. Of course there will still be a role for IFAs, with those who have neither the time nor inclination to immerse themselves in the data, but IFAs will have to increasingly demonstrate that they really add value for their fees.
I'm just interested in trying it out, have only done a general investment account (as ISA is with fidelity) £500 in and £100 a month, same with Wealthify and Wealthsimple. Just a bit of fun.
Active showed no statistically significant difference to passive. Like you said yourself, you will get funds that a)outperform their peers and b) outperform the market but that comes at the expense of the possibility of being under the market.
Effectively, you are paying someone money for volatility.
You need to seek the advice of an IFA...
No one can give you any precise advice as to what to do as it also depends on your situation - do you have a family /mortgage / other debts ?? Your current age, when you want to retire etc. What you pension is likely to be & are you close to the Lifetime Allowance ?? So many imponderables.
In 2018, we finished with a net return on +1.3%. I am pretty happy with that given the S&P500 was -5%, bonds were -2%, gold was -2%, oil was -20%.
I've left the portfolio, which provides income to mom, as I had it for all of 2018....
US Stocks: 25% (no tech)
Europe & Asia stocks: 5%
Emerging Markets: 0%
1-4yr US Gvt Treasuries: 50%
Corporate Bonds: 0%
High Yield Bonds: 0%
Foreign Gvt Bonds: 3%
Gold: 5%
General Commodities: 2%
Cash: 10%
Pretty much a fortress portfolio. I thought the dollar would own 2018. I am less sure about 2019 but am not taking any chances. I am usually a global investor but have been pulling back from non-US stocks for 2 years. I usually keep a balanced portfolio with 60% stocks but I feel stocks are over-valued lately and thus reduced it last year.
Mom won't miss much if stocks go up a lot, but given she takes out 5% of the portfolio per year for retirement income, she can't afford a sharp drop.
There are others.
My first one cost £175 and the one I got last xmas was £500. The shredded banksy at sothebys in december cost £500 back in 2005 and just sold for over a million 13 years later.
You can also fly to his hotel in bethlehem and buy a £500 sculpture that sells for a grand instantly on ebay.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46771722
I am a late comer to investments but having turned 50 and having no private pension, have decided i should get involved. I met my first ever ifa face to face for a free consultation and liked him. However 3% on any lump investments, and 1% p.a if services retained seems steep and encourages me to shop around. E.g. if I take up my full isa allowance through him/his firm, that is £600 in fees.
I appreciate there's the upside (mostly based on having access to types of ISAs I couldn't access myself), and I don't mind paying someone else to do the active management of my investments for now. However I am feeling pressured to get underway in this tax year, and where I'd normally like to do my own research, I won't have much time between now and end of March, hence wondering what you guys think of the 3 and 1 % charging rates from your experience.
The company I work for suggest we should charge as much as 5% upfront on investments under £100k.....and still charge 1% ongoing !! Scandalous in my view. Lots of advisors are charging 0.75% ongoing & I know I'm in the minority with my fellow colleagues to charge 0.5%.
There will be others on here that will post you can do it yourself.....why pay an advisor a fee.....just do the research & choose the funds yourself. To me it's more than just which funds to choose. First thing is asset allocations.....how much in equities & how much in bonds. Is the UK still worth investing in whilst Brexit is still going on. What about the US slowdown ? Corporate or Government bonds ?
That said, you mention no private pension, is it a pension or ISA you want.
Pension and ISA yes, more so the former but wanted to get the lump invested asap in one or both. However Brexit is causing me extra hesitation, naturally. A shorter term fixed rate ISA would alleviate that and give me the time I need to shop around.
Thanks for the numbers @golfaddick and other points made. I'd definitely need the professional input but keen to learn for myself in parallel. Octopus investments has been recommended to me in the past and I'll probably have a poke around there in due course too.