Labour stretches lead over Tories

[Digga]

fblm said:

Digga said:

I think the salient point is that, even for a numerate individual, it is actually impossible to fully decipher all of the charges a fund has accrued within any given period. The fact that performance is moribund is really a symptom of how much is taken out in fees and charges.

Indeed. Ever go to the bank wanting some foreign currency to be told there is 'no commission' only to receive a st exchange rate 5% below market? When you allocate some of your fund to a foreign index tracker, or 'global' bond fund the published fees are reasonable right? If there is a legal/not technically illegal way of scamming you they are at it, they arn't a charity. The only thing you can do is look at the NAV each year and calcuate your own returns. Of course this doesn't give you any recourse but at least you know you're getting fleeced and will retire in poverty.

Given the fact there is no 'exit' tax and that performance has been far, far better, I'm minded to use ISAs fully before even considering increasing pension contributions. I feel very fortunate to own assets aside from this, although I'm not inclined to be smug about that fact, because I am sure there are people employed as we speak to try and tax those too.

Am also trying to convince Mrs Digga that a decent, useable 'classic' is a sound 'investment'.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Am also trying to convince Mrs Digga that a decent, useable 'classic' is a sound 'investment'.

The problem with that route is they get narky when you fit your investment with slicks and do a trackday.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Am I berating him? I don't think so, I merely raise the point that the industry is being investigated for alleged overcharging of customers. Amongst a small group of posters disagreement ensues, lets keep this real, Sidkips may be an expert in his field of work but this in itself is not his license to deny such activities exist. Yes I have flown by-wire and dropped the odd clanger, to which Sidkips has willingly put me right. Have you spotted anywhere that I have wittingly disagreed with his replies to me. No you won't find any of my disagreement with him on the issues that he may pull me up on, I know he is a expert and I am not in this field of work.
However, I do not accept that my basic premise is that the industry has been and still is overcharging customers, he says no, I say yes. It raises lots of side issues but the basic statement remains and that is customers are being overcharged. In fairness Sidkips did at one stage admit that some minor problems may exist in the charges for services areas.
As I have now posted a link for those further interested in the truth, and accuracy of the industry practices / charges / services then click onto the link and learn, that includes you.

I've answered this already (and it would help if you could spell my name correctly just once....):

His main claim is that:

"Typically, more than half of active UK stock market managers fail to beat the FTSE 100, despite charging significantly more than so-called ‘passive’ tracker funds which blindly follow the market. "

The whole point of choosing an active manager is that they are deliberately choosing to invest away from the market benchmark. As well as the possibility that the decisions made are the 'wrong' ones (or the 'right' ones, that don't come good in the relevant timescale) extra costs are involved in implementing those transactions plus of course higher fees for those active views.

Personally I don't believe in paying for alpha on equities, generally most people would be better off with passive exposure (in my view active management should be reserved for credit and hedge funds) but if they read the prospectus about the strategy then they'd understand the risks / rewards that they've chosen.

In terms of capping aggregate fees, the 0.75% has to cover initial setup costs, ongoing admin, and then increasing cost of regualtory compliance - I do find it ironic that those who are the most vociferous about the need to 'regulate the City' are the same ones who protest about paying the cost of that regulation....

For your average £50 per month pension, that means in the first year there is £4.50 in fees to cover all the expenses. Plenty of members make lower contributions with lower fee income, whereas much of the costs are fixed.

As ever, people are always in favour of cross subsidies when it benefits them, and against it when they are providing the subsisdy...!

Well at least SIDICKS we seem to be on the same page, albeit its a double sided page. It seems to me that the industry, as others have mentioned, give full and transparent information to the client as the law requires. Should the client not fully understand perhaps they should not invest, but that misses the point. It is within the interests of both sides that investment continues and certainly Government wish that to continue, basic I suppose. Anyhow, as ever we will have to await the outcome of the investigation for the definitive, as in regulation, answer to the questions raised. Naturally I side with Woodford, as you might expect.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Really! I believe the question of 'fairness' is fairly well understood and acted upon by the vast majority of the population most of the time.

A perfect example is the purely punitive 50% tax rate mentioned before- some consider it fair, some don't.

It's in the eye of the beholder.

Yes it is a very good example and I do agree that some 'fairness'in some areas can be 'in the eyes of the beholder'. But then in Politics it is the group mass of a General Election who will have the last word on a round of Policies. Hypothetically (I do hope I don't drop myself in it again )if the rate stayed at 50% and the lower band was raised from 25% to 40% my guess is that many would call that unfair. On the other hand if the 50% rate was dropped to 40% and the 25% to 20% that may provide some sense of equilibrium and fairness within the two group sets. Blimey, I am so glad I'm not a Politician.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.

That's not 'fair', that's 'popular'.

[Mermaid]

Former Tory donor Arron Banks hands £1 million to UKIP.

[alock]

crankedup said:

But of course your question, which is a good one, revolves around politics and around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.

I disagree. There is something far better to judge what people truly believe is fair, and that's how they chose to spend their money. When people vote in an election every five years, there is a huge opportunity for people to be hypocritical. They can vote with an 'I'll be all right Jack' attitude if the manifesto suits them.

A company like Tesco is in the position it is because millions of people regularly vote with their wallets that they are happy to continue funding this company. This gets right to the heart of what people really believe because they are having to balance what they might perceive as the 'rights and wrongs of Tesco' against their own (in)convenience and bank balance. This is much truer reflection of what society thinks is 'fair'. If 10 million people were really worried about the pay gap between Dave Lewis and a shelf-stacker in Tesco, they would go out of their way to shop elsewhere.

[gpo746]

Well as I come back to the thread I see amongst the bleating waffle from some poor souls that thee are some good points made.
I have to say I do enjoy reading peoples views about history.
Back in 1997 I voted for Mr Blair prior to that I had voted a mixed bag at local level but conservative at the General Elections.
It started so well IMHO but then things started to happen.
Put simply I think amongst Dereks oceans of custard you get some plums and I think his comment about best of a bad bunch is about right. I don't trust Labour and certainly the current Labour players seem fake as. I wouldn't vote Liberal as I wouldn't trust them to deliver their aims. UKIP look appealing for several reasons but I think at this point its the Tories for me.
I didn't used to like the tories but I had respect for them. Now I don't like them for their desperate attempts to be liked and I think they are too soft to do what needs doing.
But at the end of the day..........................

[turbobloke]

Mermaid said:

Former Tory donor Arron Banks hands £1 million to UKIP.

If CMD has another pop at Nige's lot it may stretch to 2 mil.

After all it's only money

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.

That's not 'fair', that's 'popular'.

As you said "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder

[Mermaid]

turbobloke said:

Mermaid said:

Former Tory donor Arron Banks hands £1 million to UKIP.

If CMD has another pop at Nige's lot it may stretch to 2 mil.

After all it's only money

They should pool their resources - just imagine Farage as (deputy)Tory leader

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.

That's not 'fair', that's 'popular'.

Indeed it is, but it is only popular only because it is fair.

[crankedup]

alock said:

crankedup said:

But of course your question, which is a good one, revolves around politics and around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.

I disagree. There is something far better to judge what people truly believe is fair, and that's how they chose to spend their money. When people vote in an election every five years, there is a huge opportunity for people to be hypocritical. They can vote with an 'I'll be all right Jack' attitude if the manifesto suits them.

A company like Tesco is in the position it is because millions of people regularly vote with their wallets that they are happy to continue funding this company. This gets right to the heart of what people really believe because they are having to balance what they might perceive as the 'rights and wrongs of Tesco' against their own (in)convenience and bank balance. This is much truer reflection of what society thinks is 'fair'. If 10 million people were really worried about the pay gap between Dave Lewis and a shelf-stacker in Tesco, they would go out of their way to shop elsewhere.

[edh]

Mermaid said:

Former Tory donor Arron Banks hands £1 million to UKIP.

ooh that's not fair...

[edh]

sidicks said:

As ever, people are always in favour of cross subsidies when it benefits them, and against it when they are providing the subsisdy...!

...you mean like the massive subsidy to the private pensions sector? It's the only reason I stick money into a pension - as the government is handing me free money.

[crankedup]

alock said:

crankedup said:

But of course your question, which is a good one, revolves around politics and around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.

I disagree. There is something far better to judge what people truly believe is fair, and that's how they chose to spend their money. When people vote in an election every five years, there is a huge opportunity for people to be hypocritical. They can vote with an 'I'll be all right Jack' attitude if the manifesto suits them.

A company like Tesco is in the position it is because millions of people regularly vote with their wallets that they are happy to continue funding this company. This gets right to the heart of what people really believe because they are having to balance what they might perceive as the 'rights and wrongs of Tesco' against their own (in)convenience and bank balance. This is much truer reflection of what society thinks is 'fair'. If 10 million people were really worried about the pay gap between Dave Lewis and a shelf-stacker in Tesco, they would go out of their way to shop elsewhere.

Good discussion points, from where I sit your first para' seems to fit my definition of fairness within politics, that is a large group of people agree. It is a larger group than the nay sayers therefore the fairness plays out with the populist party winning. Whatever motives individuals may have for voting 'with the crowd' that is immaterial so far as the group is concerned. They all fundamentally agree the package offered is fair.

Your Tesco analogy is interesting but imo flawed so far as fairness is concerned. To many variable's involved with mass shopping with people choosing to shop or not just on price, but on convenience, as you mention, loyalty, choice of goods and many other reasons. I'm sure a retail analyst will be along and dispel my nonsense or agree and add more reasons. Can I add that I believe at their best Tesco held 24% of a total market. Leaves 76% of shoppers elsewhere. Only my opinion and happy to read of others.

[crankedup]

edh said:

Mermaid said:

Former Tory donor Arron Banks hands £1 million to UKIP.

ooh that's not fair...

Quite! I think the question of fairness may be truly exhausted. Is that a fair comment

[edh]

I'll tell you what's not fair - people making fun of Cameron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU

well it made me laugh..

[Mermaid]

edh said:

I'll tell you what's not fair - people making fun of Cameron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU

well it made me laugh..

His rating will probably go up - his honesty rewarded. :0

[rs1952]

Mermaid said:

Former Tory donor Arron Banks hands £1 million to UKIP.

We've been having this rammed down our necks locally because the bloke is local to me (same regional TV area)

Apparently he was only going to give £100k until the Tories described him as a Mr Nobody

Well, I'd never heard of him before, so he was and is to me until he got his 5 minutes of fame on the box tonight...

It appears he made his brass out of insurance. I am sure that everybody on this forum will agree how under-priced insurance is, and what a lucky fellow he is to have made any money out of it at all