Moneybox

[JohnD]

The typical mug punter will do best by investing in a tracker with the lowest possible charges and TER.

Do you see either of those numbers on the website?

edit
Ah, here we are
https://www.moneyboxapp.com/terms-and-conditions/#Fees and Charges

Table 3 claims to show "cumulative effect of costs"

But it doesn't.

What would you lose if you invested their suggested £20k a year for 20 years?

Somebody ought to make an official complaint to their regulator.

I wonder if they breach any other regulations.

perhaps they haven't bought any ferries yet.

 

[JohnD]

This article tells you more (you might need to register)

"Fund fees eat a quarter of retail investor returns

EU markets watchdog highlights ‘significant drain’ on performance in its first report on charges"

Retail fund investors lose up to a quarter of their gross returns in costs and charges, according to research from the EU’s main securities regulator. The disclosure will ratchet up pressure on the asset management industry to show that it is giving value for money. In its first annual report of fund charges, the European Securities and Markets Authority said that Ucits — EU-regulated funds sold to retail investors — carried charges that “are a significant drain on fund performance”.

While the report stated that the effect of charges on return varied across asset classes, it found that funds’ average fees accounted for a quarter of gross returns between 2015 and 2017.

The impact of costs on returns was most marked with regard to equity funds: two percentage points on average. Esma also showed that passive equity funds “consistently outperform” active equity funds once fees were taken into account. It said costs for active funds were “significantly higher” than those for passive funds, which led to lower performance net of costs for active compared with passive."

https://www.ft.com/content/0e5d9a1e-e56c-348a-9ccd-8fd1249092da

"passive" generally means trackers.

 

[Bodd]

This article tells you more (you might need to register)

"Fund fees eat a quarter of retail investor returns

EU markets watchdog highlights ‘significant drain’ on performance in its first report on charges"

Retail fund investors lose up to a quarter of their gross returns in costs and charges, according to research from the EU’s main securities regulator. The disclosure will ratchet up pressure on the asset management industry to show that it is giving value for money. In its first annual report of fund charges, the European Securities and Markets Authority said that Ucits — EU-regulated funds sold to retail investors — carried charges that “are a significant drain on fund performance”.

While the report stated that the effect of charges on return varied across asset classes, it found that funds’ average fees accounted for a quarter of gross returns between 2015 and 2017.

The impact of costs on returns was most marked with regard to equity funds: two percentage points on average. Esma also showed that passive equity funds “consistently outperform” active equity funds once fees were taken into account. It said costs for active funds were “significantly higher” than those for passive funds, which led to lower performance net of costs for active compared with passive."

https://www.ft.com/content/0e5d9a1e-e56c-348a-9ccd-8fd1249092da

"passive" generally means trackers.

In a nut shell John, good or bad idea....

I think the idea is good

 

[JohnD]

there's a chart on here
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/inv...fees-one-percent-half-million-savings-impact/

And a calculator on here
https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/calculators-and-apps/managed-funds-fee-calculator
I'm guessing the Australian government is not bankrolled by the finance industry.

bear in mind two things

- Every billion taken off the mug punters is another billion in the pocked of the financial industry

- The finance trade is a big contributor to the Tory party (and to the Brexit campaigns)

 

[JohnD]

In a nut shell John, good or bad idea....

In a nutshell, giving your money to a company that will skim the cream off the top is a bad idea.

You can do better.

 

[Bodd]

In a nutshell, giving your money to a company that will skim the cream off the top is a bad idea.

You can do better.

Thank you John

That seems good advice.

 

[Notch7]

Thank you John

That seems good advice.

I tend to think investing shares means buying the minimum that makes the few not too much to recover. Which I reckon means buying about £500 to £1000 worth in one transaction. The problem at the moment is that the footsie is high and Brexit + Trump mean a difficult market to predict. Also there has been such a huge change in the world due to the fact that its the digital age, where data has become worth more than bricks n mortar.

If you dont want to spend much on 1 share type, you could try unit trusts.

 

[EddieM]

The FTSE is high??

 

[Notch7]

The FTSE is high??

Well it dropped to around 4000 after the financial crash...........

And its been a bull market for almost 10 years