A few weeks ago I was watching a TV program about property investing (can't remember where or what it was)
They interviewed some young lady who had amassed a portfolio of IIRC 30 properties, all on near 100% loans. Something had obviously gone wrong with this plan and she had to sell up. She indicated that she had lost 300K, implication was that this was the seed money that she started with and was now broke.
So, you can go wrong with property.
tim
How does that work? Brokerage fees up front but lower/no annual charge? Where's the cutover point?
I have no intention of buying and selling a the drop of any hats - i want a fire-and-forget investment - so does that matter to me?
RNS?
They do sound interesting. I still find them quite incomprehensible, though.
Is an ETF different from an OEIC whose fund is a tracker?
tom
What is it they say about 'past performance is not an indicator of future performance' or whatever? Or is there some special magic about high income funds that makes them exempt from that?
So what happens to the dividends? Is having a tracker like owning a fraction of the whole market but throwing away the dividends?
tom
This is a posting on the Regulatory News Service, on which any detail which may affect the price of a share has to be posted.
Yes. An OEIC is an open-ended Investment Company, the price of which is set once per day (normally). An ETF is a fund traded on the stock exchange. The contents may be identical or not.
Only the fact that the income received makes them less volatile than shares which pay a low or no dividend. They are not immune from market forces.
Most of the dividend goes in charges. In theory there should be some left for a distribution, or accumulation.
In message , Tom Anderson writes
No. Unless you know a way of calculating future volatility.
If you look at most trackers, then in effect yes!. The FTSE All Share Index just measure the share prices of its constituents, and doesnt include dividends. Trackers, on the other hand, do receive the dividends yet still most dont match the performance of the index they are tracking. The yield of the FTSE All Share as a whole is something like 2
- 3% (I dont have the exact figure to hand)
Income Fund generally concentrate on 'income' producing shares and should achieve a higher total income than the FTSE AS. The compounding of this added income has the effect of reducing volatility.
well, I'll try and answer
yes, for example if you buy through comdirect in an ISA, there are no purchases costs but you do have to pay 25 quid a year for the priviliege of having the self select ISA. I think the cut off was about 2 years. index tracker with L&G costs about .5% in management fees whereas ishares ftse tracker costs about 0.3-0.4 I think. so once you're past maybe 10K it'll be cheaper with Ishares. There are selling costs to be taken into account though with ishares....12.50 per trade with comdirect would enable you to sell the whole lot.
they aren't really that bad. Imagine a company that simply holds shares and has no other business interests, that company is listed on the stock market...that's an EFT. If the share price of the company (EFT) falls below what it actually holds in funds, then people are likely to buy more of them which will push the price back up. fortunatly there's people out there with a lot more money than us, and our little forays into the stock market won't budge the price.
try this...
i dunno what an oeic is, sorry
No. It's the fundamental mechanical strategy that high yield imposes on a manager. Read the 2nd part of the report from Virgin linked to in this post
Daytona
Those Virgin reports are very interesting, and for the unwary, quite misleading.
Why do they only use the sector 'UK All Companies'?
I also get worried when I see a definition of 'median' as 'An Average'. Admittedly it does go on to say "The middle observation in a set of ranked data." but median is NOT an average.
Then you need to broaden your education, old son.
Webster's dictionary (I know, American, sorry) defines it as "a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values".
Sod the yanks. Who would trust a dictionary that uses the defined word in its definition? They cant even spell 'summarises'. Duh!
My school statistics teacher was adamant that Median did not mean MEAN and it doesnt mean average, (and I passed the exam thingy that he was supposed to be teaching me).
(Then again we also got detention for using 'americanisms'!)
Sorry, I inadvertently misled you. I didn't make clear that the definition I quoted was of "average", not of "median".
A definition of "average" which specifically includes "median" as one of the options, implies that median is *an* average.
But sometimes "average" can mean "median".
That'll have been in the days before the "special relationship".
The median can be the average, but that only occurs when the value of the variable mid-way between the maximum and minimum values is equal to the average. That could occur with a normal distribution.
In a series of 101 values, the 51st will be the median, with 50 values above and 50 values below it.
To get back to matters financial, the average wage is something over £20k, while the median wage is nearer £16k. The distribution is skewed.
"Terry Harper" wrote
No - the median is *an* average.
There are three main types of "average" :- mean, median & mode. [There could be others.]
"Terry Harper" wrote
... you are trying to describe the median, OK ...
"Terry Harper" wrote
*Which* average? From your context, you appear to be considering the *mean* where you say "average". But the mean is (of course) not ** "the" average **.
i believe the real name for this is 'semantics' ;-)
And what's that supposed to mean? That it's not important? Nothing could be more wrong! Semantics is about what words mean, and if you don't know what they mean, you can't have a meaningful discussion. That's why arguing over semantics is not generally as disingenuous as folk often seem to think.
Huh? In the scientific circles I move in when you say "average", "mean" is assumed to be the type of average you mean, unless you specify "median" or "mode".
cd
"criticaldensity" wrote
The 'mean' may be the most common form of average, but effectively saying (as Terry did) "but that only occurs when the [median] is equal to the average" is rather silly, because the median is *always* an average!!
In message , Ronald Raygun writes
Not so. Just because word A is a member of the set of definitions of Word B, does not mean they are synonym.
Quite, it was almost before the days it was Colony!
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.