So why is the FTSE 100 nearly at a 52w high?
Discussion
Behemoth said:
Simpo Two said:
As ever, there will be a reason that makes sense to the people that made it, you just have to figure out what it is.
This one's pretty easy, imo. A Brexit gamble to soften the French stance. There aren't many cards up the sleeve and this is the strongest May's got with the French by a country mile.Difficult knowing what to buy atm....markets over valued imho so very risky current buys ditto funds with LM Japan and BR Gold and G cashed in after meteoric rises. Small time miners e.g Centamin and Arcacia possible upsides but little else appeals.
Cars are still too expensive as well!
Cars are still too expensive as well!
Ozzie Osmond said:
sidicks said:
iantr said:
I think you misunderstand what an IFA does. If you want advice on market timing then you need a tipster of some sort, not an IFA.
It's been explained on numerous occasions, yet the same (apparent) misunderstandings come up time and time again...;(
If the business were to describe itself more clearly as "Asset Allocation Consultant" or whatever, there would perhaps be less scope for misunderstanding.
What I find difficult to accept is the heads I win tails I win that goes with the territory of the management costs.
I would gladly pay a % of my profits in the good years but I'm very unhappy to pay anything when the funds make a loss.
Will you please explain to me the financial logic behind that ?
avinalarf said:
I agree Ozzie and on that basis I don't have a problem paying for advise on how to put my financial house in order.
What I find difficult to accept is the heads I win tails I win that goes with the territory of the management costs.
I would gladly pay a % of my profits in the good years but I'm very unhappy to pay anything when the funds make a loss.
Will you please explain to me the financial logic behind that ?
Depends what type of management you're paying for. If you buy a fund that says "we'll just track the FTSE100" then I'd expect to pay a very small but fixed management fee. No reason why the size of the fee should have anything at all to do with the return earned by the fund.What I find difficult to accept is the heads I win tails I win that goes with the territory of the management costs.
I would gladly pay a % of my profits in the good years but I'm very unhappy to pay anything when the funds make a loss.
Will you please explain to me the financial logic behind that ?
avinalarf said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
sidicks said:
iantr said:
I think you misunderstand what an IFA does. If you want advice on market timing then you need a tipster of some sort, not an IFA.
It's been explained on numerous occasions, yet the same (apparent) misunderstandings come up time and time again...;(
If the business were to describe itself more clearly as "Asset Allocation Consultant" or whatever, there would perhaps be less scope for misunderstanding.
What I find difficult to accept is the heads I win tails I win that goes with the territory of the management costs.
I would gladly pay a % of my profits in the good years but I'm very unhappy to pay anything when the funds make a loss.
Will you please explain to me the financial logic behind that ?
But your understanding of the role of an IFA is so far from reality I fear much breath would be wasted.
DoubleSix said:
Plenty of hedgefunds that work on a performance basis, crack on...
But your understanding of the role of an IFA is so far from reality I fear much breath would be wasted.
Dunno what the current norm is, but hedgers used to typically charge 2% before taking into account performance. I can see why that would put a lot of people off, but equally it's not unreasonable to pay the managers to have a go on your behalf. There are no guaranteed profits in this environment, but there are guaranteed costs of running a fund. If you don't pay your manager a fee during the times when their funds don't perform, you'll have the inconvenience of them going bust.But your understanding of the role of an IFA is so far from reality I fear much breath would be wasted.
DoubleSix said:
Plenty of hedgefunds that work on a performance basis, crack on...
But your understanding of the role of an IFA is so far from reality I fear much breath would be wasted.
A bit arrogant,don't you think.But your understanding of the role of an IFA is so far from reality I fear much breath would be wasted.
I'm not in the financial sector,I'm a layman, so I presume he does what it says on the tin ,that is he gives financial advise.
I do not expect him to guarantee me year on year profits on my funds investments.
The one I worked with asked me about my risk appetite and various other things and then we chatted about the most suitable funds for me.
I then devided my ISA allowance between the funds I thought most suited to me after the conversation.
Anything wrong with that ?
What I am querying is the financial logic behind the fact that I pay considerable management charges when the fund underperforms and loses my money.
I am more than content to pay a % of any profit ,even if it's more than the usual management charges ,but loath to pay when I've made a loss.
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
ATG said:
Dunno what the current norm is, but hedgers used to typically charge 2% before taking into account performance. I can see why that would put a lot of people off, but equally it's not unreasonable to pay the managers to have a go on your behalf. There are no guaranteed profits in this environment, but there are guaranteed costs of running a fund. If you don't pay your manager a fee during the times when their funds don't perform, you'll have the inconvenience of them going bust.
My answer to that is to pay a bigger % when the fund makes a profit and bugger all when it makes a loss.I really don't understand the business environment nowadays nobody wants to take responsibility for bad decisions ,always bloody excuses.
I run a business ,if it makes a loss I stomach it.
avinalarf said:
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
From first principles, I totally agree with you. It's called responsibility and confidence in one's ability. If you're no good, you lose and get a job in MacDonalds. But the industry sets the rules of engagement, and you either engage, or not. It is true that no-one can call the markets reliably. Therefore they go for the percentage regardless, and you have to hope that they do something to earn it.avinalarf said:
A bit arrogant,don't you think.
I'm not in the financial sector,I'm a layman, so I presume he does what it says on the tin ,that is he gives financial advise.
I do not expect him to guarantee me year on year profits on my funds investments.
The one I worked with asked me about my risk appetite and various other things and then we chatted about the most suitable funds for me.
I then devided my ISA allowance between the funds I thought most suited to me after the conversation.
Anything wrong with that ?
What I am querying is the financial logic behind the fact that I pay considerable management charges when the fund underperforms and loses my money.
I am more than content to pay a % of any profit ,even if it's more than the usual management charges ,but loath to pay when I've made a loss.
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
You may well be a layman but the reason you're getting short shrift is because you clearly haven't grasped the basics of the industry - sorry if that sounds harsh but that's how it comes across.I'm not in the financial sector,I'm a layman, so I presume he does what it says on the tin ,that is he gives financial advise.
I do not expect him to guarantee me year on year profits on my funds investments.
The one I worked with asked me about my risk appetite and various other things and then we chatted about the most suitable funds for me.
I then devided my ISA allowance between the funds I thought most suited to me after the conversation.
Anything wrong with that ?
What I am querying is the financial logic behind the fact that I pay considerable management charges when the fund underperforms and loses my money.
I am more than content to pay a % of any profit ,even if it's more than the usual management charges ,but loath to pay when I've made a loss.
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
I recently had an unvented cyclinder fitted in my home and as a layman to the plumbing industry I did a load of reading in order to understand the task at hand so I could assess the quality of work and understand what I was paying for...
Have you even read a basic Wiki?
Wiki IFA said: 'This does not mean that a client can recover compensation simply because an investment loses money. With all investments, there is an element of risk. The basis for complaint would be only whether or not that level of risk was unsuitable for a particular client based on the information given to the adviser. This is particularly important, and especially in relation to the sale of with profits endowments intended to be used to repay an interest only mortgage. A great many people saw[citation needed] strongly reduced investment returns from their endowments due to lower interest rates (and hence investment returns) and subsequently claimed that they had been mis-sold. While the poor performance is regrettable, it in no way constitutes mis-selling in the legal sense unless it can be shown that the endowment was unsuitable for the client's needs at the time it was advised. It is not possible to use retrospective judgements to assess decisions made in good faith in the past.'
You must surely appreciate that financial professionals largely exist to facilitate the risk their client wants to take and ensure the client's adopted position is suitable - not to partake directly, as the advisors ATR is unlikely to be the same as the clients.
Simpo Two said:
avinalarf said:
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
From first principles, I totally agree with you. It's called responsibility and confidence in one's ability. If you're no good, you lose and get a job in MacDonalds. But the industry sets the rules of engagement, and you either engage, or not. It is true that no-one can call the markets reliably. Therefore they go for the percentage regardless, and you have to hope that they do something to earn it.It's that bloody attitude that got us into the s
te we're in today.All that crap with the banks privatising profits and nationalising debts.
If a fund managers funds keep losing money ,feck him,let him go under,just like I would in the same circumstances.
Simpo.... if my company gets into debt I'll pop round to you to bail me out...ok.
Sorry mate but I'm well pissed of with how some financial movers and shakers have got away with bloody murder.
My mate sidicks will be along with his mantra that "they haven't broken any laws".
Always the same b
ks ,"ooh you're a prick you don't understand how financial institutions work".Maybe not ....but if it looks like s
te and smells like ste it is bloody ste.DoubleSix said:
avinalarf said:
A bit arrogant,don't you think.
I'm not in the financial sector,I'm a layman, so I presume he does what it says on the tin ,that is he gives financial advise.
I do not expect him to guarantee me year on year profits on my funds investments.
The one I worked with asked me about my risk appetite and various other things and then we chatted about the most suitable funds for me.
I then devided my ISA allowance between the funds I thought most suited to me after the conversation.
Anything wrong with that ?
What I am querying is the financial logic behind the fact that I pay considerable management charges when the fund underperforms and loses my money.
I am more than content to pay a % of any profit ,even if it's more than the usual management charges ,but loath to pay when I've made a loss.
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
You may well be a layman but the reason you're getting short shrift is because you clearly haven't grasped the basics of the industry - sorry if that sounds harsh but that's how it comes across.I'm not in the financial sector,I'm a layman, so I presume he does what it says on the tin ,that is he gives financial advise.
I do not expect him to guarantee me year on year profits on my funds investments.
The one I worked with asked me about my risk appetite and various other things and then we chatted about the most suitable funds for me.
I then devided my ISA allowance between the funds I thought most suited to me after the conversation.
Anything wrong with that ?
What I am querying is the financial logic behind the fact that I pay considerable management charges when the fund underperforms and loses my money.
I am more than content to pay a % of any profit ,even if it's more than the usual management charges ,but loath to pay when I've made a loss.
To me it's seems that the financial sector is unable to bear the responsibility of a loss but only want to come out on top whatever the result,hence heads I win ,tails I win.
I recently had an unvented cyclinder fitted in my home and as a layman to the plumbing industry I did a load of reading in order to understand the task at hand so I could assess the quality of work and understand what I was paying for...
Have you even read a basic Wiki?
Wiki IFA said: 'This does not mean that a client can recover compensation simply because an investment loses money. With all investments, there is an element of risk. The basis for complaint would be only whether or not that level of risk was unsuitable for a particular client based on the information given to the adviser. This is particularly important, and especially in relation to the sale of with profits endowments intended to be used to repay an interest only mortgage. A great many people saw[citation needed] strongly reduced investment returns from their endowments due to lower interest rates (and hence investment returns) and subsequently claimed that they had been mis-sold. While the poor performance is regrettable, it in no way constitutes mis-selling in the legal sense unless it can be shown that the endowment was unsuitable for the client's needs at the time it was advised. It is not possible to use retrospective judgements to assess decisions made in good faith in the past.'
You must surely appreciate that financial professionals largely exist to facilitate the risk their client wants to take and ensure the client's adopted position is suitable - not to partake directly, as the advisors ATR is unlikely to be the same as the clients.
I do NOT expect an IFA to recompense me for underperforming funds.
What I was saying that it would make more sense to me if FUND MANAGERS ( not bloody IFA's ) made a handsome % of commision from me commensurate with the profit I made with the fund which he manages.
BUT made bugger all if THE FUND THAT HE MANAGED underperformed.
DoubleSix said:
You began by saying you didn't mind paying for "advice" in the good years but resented doing in bad years blah blah blah
DFMs aren't advisers though are they...
It's you who has been conflating the two roles and are now shifting your position as far as I can see.
What I said was this,..........DFMs aren't advisers though are they...
It's you who has been conflating the two roles and are now shifting your position as far as I can see.
I agree Ozzie and on that basis I don't have a problem paying for advise on how to put my financial house in order.
What I find difficult to accept is the heads I win tails I win that goes with the territory of the management costs.
I would gladly pay a % of my profits in the good years but I'm very unhappy to pay anything when the funds make a loss.
Will you please explain to me the financial logic behind that ?
I was plainly referring to management costs,and not referring to the fee I gave the IFA and assumed it would be recognised I was referring to FUND MANAGERS
The main thrust of my argument is the lack acceptance of any responsibility in the financial sectors,thats as I perceive it.
Anyway I don't want to fall out with you over this,it's only a forum debate,and so I wish you goodnight ,sleep well.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff