Woodford anyone?
Discussion
Zoon said:
Yes, and much lower ongoing fees.
Some of the "independent" funds he picked all seemed to revolve around Quilter/Old Mutual and had pretty hefty fees.
Interesting but not surprising.Some of the "independent" funds he picked all seemed to revolve around Quilter/Old Mutual and had pretty hefty fees.
Impression I get is that IFA's tend to play it safe(ish).
With a relative even on a modest pot they were paying about £1K/year for an annual phone call.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Zoon said:
Yes, and much lower ongoing fees.
Some of the "independent" funds he picked all seemed to revolve around Quilter/Old Mutual and had pretty hefty fees.
Interesting but not surprising.Some of the "independent" funds he picked all seemed to revolve around Quilter/Old Mutual and had pretty hefty fees.
Impression I get is that IFA's tend to play it safe(ish).
With a relative even on a modest pot they were paying about £1K/year for an annual phone call.
When I looked at the ongoing costs per fund it was quite an eye opener.
Zoon said:
That's the problem, he was quite happy at review stage to show it had returned 5% a year.
When I looked at the ongoing costs per fund it was quite an eye opener.
Yeah it's what I experienced with a relative.When I looked at the ongoing costs per fund it was quite an eye opener.
The IFA wasn't doing anything wrong but wasn't adding much value and 2% in my relatives pocket come hell or high water is a reasonable amount.
I wasn't asking to be a smartarse but you often read of people who leave an IFA who had them in a balanced fund and stick it all in SMT (or whatever) and think isn't this great.. you know what comes next..
Worth remembering that a lot of IFA's seem to be moving away from any idea that they can outperform into being more about having a plan and sticking to it.
So they might not claim they could have magically avoided what happened in March for example but they might claim that with them behind you perhaps you (not you personally) wouldn't have panicked and sold and taken a 30% hit.
I can see the value in that for some people.
So they might not claim they could have magically avoided what happened in March for example but they might claim that with them behind you perhaps you (not you personally) wouldn't have panicked and sold and taken a 30% hit.
I can see the value in that for some people.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Worth remembering that a lot of IFA's seem to be moving away from any idea that they can outperform into being more about having a plan and sticking to it.
Bold statement. Do you have personal experience of IFA's making such claim to beat the market? Having worked in Finance for my entire career (half was managing p&l and risk reporting on the very investment products held in ISA/Pensions), I know this industry is pretty highly regulated. If 'a lot of IFA' s' are making such claim, and the customer believe the IFA have failed in their duties, do you have any evidence of successful legal claim for failure to beat the market? Edited by chip* on Wednesday 9th December 12:28
chip* said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Worth remembering that a lot of IFA's seem to be moving away from any idea that they can outperform into being more about having a plan and sticking to it.
Bold statement. Do you have personal experience of IFA's making such claim to beat the market? Having worked in Finance for my entire career (half was managing p&l and risk reporting on the very investment products held in ISA/Pensions), I know this industry is pretty highly regulated. If 'a lot of IFA' s' are making such claim, and the customer believe the IFA have failed in their duties, do you have any evidence of successful legal claim for failure to beat the market? Edited by chip* on Wednesday 9th December 12:28
I think that idea is often the perception if the client isn't it? Many don't seem to trust themselves.
There are a few threads on here where people say they've beaten their IFA's returns as if the reason for using an IFA is to maximise returns.
As you say it isn't something I can recall seeing an IFA claiming themselves.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Loose language on my part.
I think that idea is often the perception if the client isn't it? Many don't seem to trust themselves.
Or maybe simply the client didnt understand the role of an IFA?
There are a few threads on here where people say they've beaten their IFA's returns as if the reason for using an IFA is to maximise returns.
I probably can beat my IFA managed portfolio if I stuck it all on Tesla, but it's going to be one hell of a bumpy ride along the way.. Is that really suitable for me?
I.e. As you very know, you can only compared if the funds are similar in risk and volatility...
As you say it isn't something I can recall seeing an IFA claiming themselves.
Thanks for clarifying.
I think that idea is often the perception if the client isn't it? Many don't seem to trust themselves.
Or maybe simply the client didnt understand the role of an IFA?
There are a few threads on here where people say they've beaten their IFA's returns as if the reason for using an IFA is to maximise returns.
I probably can beat my IFA managed portfolio if I stuck it all on Tesla, but it's going to be one hell of a bumpy ride along the way.. Is that really suitable for me?
I.e. As you very know, you can only compared if the funds are similar in risk and volatility...
As you say it isn't something I can recall seeing an IFA claiming themselves.
Thanks for clarifying.
Edited by chip* on Wednesday 9th December 13:40
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We are not that far apart. Picking stocks is not easy, it’s at best an educated guess. If you research a company profit gains and look at the share price %change they should move at the same rate. The DOT com was not a surprise with companies with not actual profits or poor real growth but with share prices going through the roof. Obviously it would catch up and invest in companies with that big discrepancy at your own peril. That was my point and why I would not invest in a company without understanding how it makes money and what is it’s real annual profit growth.
As I don’t have time to research properly I stick some money on index funds that shield me a bit more from the short term market volatility. I am in it for the long term. That’s why I don’t need an IFA to tell me where to put my money as I am not of the speculative type and I am in it for the long term. My spread looks big but it is around the 10% mark really. Some years better than others but I can see averaging that as I go along.
You probably read my posts in a very literal sense but I think we agree that IFA are not that necessary for my type of long term investing, I don’t invest in single companies and do not invest in actively managed funds. I am not a sophisticated investor but more a pragmatic one and quite happy with my returns thus far.
Sorry the off topic...
On topic I did loose £120 on a Woodford fund that went bust(put that there to see what happens), got back about £100. Invested only £200 as didn’t trust it too much. It was a silly mistake, but learn the lesson.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm slow to the party with the above extracted quote from last Wednesday.I'm fascinated. I had no idea an IFA would put someone in that many funds.
May I ask, what type of funds? And how does the fund selection fit with your chosen risk profile?
And how is performance reported? Do you get something from the "platform" or are the platform and IFA the same outfit? What I'm thinking about here is that a number of those funds will be holding the same stock and I'm wondering how those holdings get aggregated.
For anyone who wants a history lesson to put some of the story into context:
As I read it I thought that various sources would be quite biased so I cannot really say if it is a fully objective history - and, of course, it looks like another chapter or two is due, what with Woodford off to China and then trying to do a Bergerac and make Jersey a happier place....
IMHO, worth a read. Dry. You know the plot.
As I read it I thought that various sources would be quite biased so I cannot really say if it is a fully objective history - and, of course, it looks like another chapter or two is due, what with Woodford off to China and then trying to do a Bergerac and make Jersey a happier place....
IMHO, worth a read. Dry. You know the plot.
In lay terms, if investors didn't pull their money out, do we know roughly where the fund would be sitting today?
I understand Taylor Wimpey for example had a fair weighting, which has since increased 15% since the fund collapsed?
I'm interested in whether ultimately he picked good stocks but became too confident on liquidity.
I understand Taylor Wimpey for example had a fair weighting, which has since increased 15% since the fund collapsed?
I'm interested in whether ultimately he picked good stocks but became too confident on liquidity.
B9 said:
In lay terms, if investors didn't pull their money out, do we know roughly where the fund would be sitting today?
I understand Taylor Wimpey for example had a fair weighting, which has since increased 15% since the fund collapsed?
I'm interested in whether ultimately he picked good stocks but became too confident on liquidity.
I don't know the answer to this, and would be interested, however he picked some utter dogs and took major positions in them.I understand Taylor Wimpey for example had a fair weighting, which has since increased 15% since the fund collapsed?
I'm interested in whether ultimately he picked good stocks but became too confident on liquidity.
Capita - lost 99% of its value 2014-2020.
Centrica - lost 75%.
He owned 31% of Eve Sleep, became worthless in 2019.
He also backed Purple Bricks in a big way, having to bail when the price tanked.
Amigo - lost 80% by 2019 and worthless today.
Provident Financial - again lost 80% by 2019.
He must have been an investor's dream in 2015 - he had so much money to "invest", I wonder how much due diligence he and his team did. Still they, must have been good at it as they're all clubbing together to start up all over again. I guess Woodford wants to buy back his equestrian estate.
PhilboSE said:
I wonder how much due diligence he and his team did.
By all accounts, not very muchOne story revolves around a US firm that was looking for funding and openly told that he received the cheque before the expected due diligence that never materialised!
Others appeared to involve Woodford pressuring the team to provide the answers he wanted to hear. Not a great way to do your DD.
PhilboSE said:
Capita - lost 99% of its value 2014-2020.
Centrica - lost 75%.
He owned 31% of Eve Sleep, became worthless in 2019.
He also backed Purple Bricks in a big way, having to bail when the price tanked.
Amigo - lost 80% by 2019 and worthless today.
Provident Financial - again lost 80% by 2019.
Think you can probably add Allied Minds to that list of heroes.Centrica - lost 75%.
He owned 31% of Eve Sleep, became worthless in 2019.
He also backed Purple Bricks in a big way, having to bail when the price tanked.
Amigo - lost 80% by 2019 and worthless today.
Provident Financial - again lost 80% by 2019.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff