Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
Whatever you do, get it into an ISA, even if for now just a cash one, can always transfer it later, but use it or lose it (the allowance).redman said:Be interested in some people's comments. I haven't yet used my ISA for the current tax year. I am probably overweight in equities for my age, don't want to reduce that element but don't think I should increase much. My thought is buy into a corporate bond fund. I would use the L&G as I have several ISA's already on that platform and don't want to overcomplicate.1 -
That's my point, Rob. It should be national median income for the tax relief. If you choose to retire in an eight bedroom detached house, then that's a luxury and tax payers shouldn't be subsidising that excess income need.Rob7Lee said:
I think we are coming to the time of a flat, at least flat rate, of tax relief.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Can't argue the rules are too complicated. Worse, they keep changing them, which is very counter-productive given you are making decisions on a 30 year time frame.stevexreeve said:This is a good reminder that pension savings are, almost by definition, dealt with in circumstances of illness, dementia, depression or loneliness. The rules regarding tax on pensions are simply too complex, not fit for purpose and can be inhumane. They are used by wealthy people to play a harmless game with the Inland Revenue but young people are instinctively repulsed by the whole thing and have to be nudged into saving by having to opt out of government schemes.
Not a political point or aimed at the finance industry in general. And certainly not anybody here! Just felling a bit fed up this morning!
Ever since Gordon Brown raided pensions, every chancellor since has worked out that by the time people realise they've been robbed, it won't affect their re-election prospects - it's too remote for people to feel at the time it happens.
I've said here many times, I think the fairest way of doing things is to allow a flat overall amount of tax relief for everyone, sufficient for people to live build a pot big enough for.a (median) income. Anything above that should be a luxury and not supported by tax relief. I'd take a similar approach re energy use and how that is taxed.
The issue I've always had on things like a median income/tax relief - that might be £20k to one person and £75k to another as will depend on so many things, one example whether you live in a 2 bed terrace or a 8 bed detached and the relevant expense.0 -
What do you do then for those in Final Salary schemes ? It's always been said that its difficult for HMRC & Companies to work round a flat rate for tax relief as it comes out of gross pay & therefore tricky when you have 2 or 3 levels of tax.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
That's my point, Rob. It should be national median income for the tax relief. If you choose to retire in an eight bedroom detached house, then that's a luxury and tax payers shouldn't be subsidising that excess income need.Rob7Lee said:
I think we are coming to the time of a flat, at least flat rate, of tax relief.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Can't argue the rules are too complicated. Worse, they keep changing them, which is very counter-productive given you are making decisions on a 30 year time frame.stevexreeve said:This is a good reminder that pension savings are, almost by definition, dealt with in circumstances of illness, dementia, depression or loneliness. The rules regarding tax on pensions are simply too complex, not fit for purpose and can be inhumane. They are used by wealthy people to play a harmless game with the Inland Revenue but young people are instinctively repulsed by the whole thing and have to be nudged into saving by having to opt out of government schemes.
Not a political point or aimed at the finance industry in general. And certainly not anybody here! Just felling a bit fed up this morning!
Ever since Gordon Brown raided pensions, every chancellor since has worked out that by the time people realise they've been robbed, it won't affect their re-election prospects - it's too remote for people to feel at the time it happens.
I've said here many times, I think the fairest way of doing things is to allow a flat overall amount of tax relief for everyone, sufficient for people to live build a pot big enough for.a (median) income. Anything above that should be a luxury and not supported by tax relief. I'd take a similar approach re energy use and how that is taxed.
The issue I've always had on things like a median income/tax relief - that might be £20k to one person and £75k to another as will depend on so many things, one example whether you live in a 2 bed terrace or a 8 bed detached and the relevant expense.
I have many clients in the NHS Pension Scheme who get 40% tax relief - how do they only pay 1 flat rate. Also, there are heavy penalties for exceeding both the Annual Allowance and the Lifetime Allowance. The former being a retrospective tax as in a final salary scheme you dont generally know you've exceeded the AA until after that tax year has ended - for the NHS it's 6 months until you get any AA input figures.0 -
Not sure I agree, appreciate not 100% of the time, but hasn't the 8 bedroomed house owners more than likely paid for this 'subsidy' themselves in tax through their life? They are after all tax payers themselves? Some of the existing rules are already highly restrictive.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
That's my point, Rob. It should be national median income for the tax relief. If you choose to retire in an eight bedroom detached house, then that's a luxury and tax payers shouldn't be subsidising that excess income need.Rob7Lee said:
I think we are coming to the time of a flat, at least flat rate, of tax relief.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Can't argue the rules are too complicated. Worse, they keep changing them, which is very counter-productive given you are making decisions on a 30 year time frame.stevexreeve said:This is a good reminder that pension savings are, almost by definition, dealt with in circumstances of illness, dementia, depression or loneliness. The rules regarding tax on pensions are simply too complex, not fit for purpose and can be inhumane. They are used by wealthy people to play a harmless game with the Inland Revenue but young people are instinctively repulsed by the whole thing and have to be nudged into saving by having to opt out of government schemes.
Not a political point or aimed at the finance industry in general. And certainly not anybody here! Just felling a bit fed up this morning!
Ever since Gordon Brown raided pensions, every chancellor since has worked out that by the time people realise they've been robbed, it won't affect their re-election prospects - it's too remote for people to feel at the time it happens.
I've said here many times, I think the fairest way of doing things is to allow a flat overall amount of tax relief for everyone, sufficient for people to live build a pot big enough for.a (median) income. Anything above that should be a luxury and not supported by tax relief. I'd take a similar approach re energy use and how that is taxed.
The issue I've always had on things like a median income/tax relief - that might be £20k to one person and £75k to another as will depend on so many things, one example whether you live in a 2 bed terrace or a 8 bed detached and the relevant expense.
I spoke to Golfie today (which might be why he specifically talked about final salary) as one of my friends got promoted last tax year in the Met to Inspector. This means he's over his annual allowance by 44k and for him a big tax bill (he found out more than 6 months after the end of the tax year). This isn't some massive earner, about £58k plus bit of overtime so maybe £65k.1 -
Premium Bonds. £50 for me and £50 for Mrs R7L0
-
£25 premium bonds for me. A bit more from the stock market rises yesterday, though down on where I was in early February. Good increases in sustainable energy.
1 -
2 x £25 for me1
-
£25 for me.1
-
Nought for me, 1 x £100 for Mrs Large1
-
2 x £25 for me1
- Sponsored links:
-
Disappointing outcome here. £25 for Mrs Chaz but bugger all for me and the boy
0 -
Art0
-
i know you're an art collector/investor, what do you think of the NFT art market?shine166 said:Art0 -
PB’s naff all for me £25.00 for my dear lady.1
-
Tbh I don't really understand the concept, everything i buy usually gets displayed for a short period of time... feel like you're buying a limited jpeg to me.kentaddick said:
i know you're an art collector/investor, what do you think of the NFT art market?shine166 said:Art
Damien hirsts current release, you can pay with crypto and avoid VAT (short term) by leaving it in there vault.. thats probably as close to it as I'd like to get and il be jumping on before the deadline tomorrow1 -
I agree, it's our money to start with and the government apparently wants to encourage saving (though I'm not convinced they really do in a consumer society ...).Rob7Lee said:
Not sure I agree, appreciate not 100% of the time, but hasn't the 8 bedroomed house owners more than likely paid for this 'subsidy' themselves in tax through their life? They are after all tax payers themselves? Some of the existing rules are already highly restrictive.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
That's my point, Rob. It should be national median income for the tax relief. If you choose to retire in an eight bedroom detached house, then that's a luxury and tax payers shouldn't be subsidising that excess income need.Rob7Lee said:
I think we are coming to the time of a flat, at least flat rate, of tax relief.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Can't argue the rules are too complicated. Worse, they keep changing them, which is very counter-productive given you are making decisions on a 30 year time frame.stevexreeve said:This is a good reminder that pension savings are, almost by definition, dealt with in circumstances of illness, dementia, depression or loneliness. The rules regarding tax on pensions are simply too complex, not fit for purpose and can be inhumane. They are used by wealthy people to play a harmless game with the Inland Revenue but young people are instinctively repulsed by the whole thing and have to be nudged into saving by having to opt out of government schemes.
Not a political point or aimed at the finance industry in general. And certainly not anybody here! Just felling a bit fed up this morning!
Ever since Gordon Brown raided pensions, every chancellor since has worked out that by the time people realise they've been robbed, it won't affect their re-election prospects - it's too remote for people to feel at the time it happens.
I've said here many times, I think the fairest way of doing things is to allow a flat overall amount of tax relief for everyone, sufficient for people to live build a pot big enough for.a (median) income. Anything above that should be a luxury and not supported by tax relief. I'd take a similar approach re energy use and how that is taxed.
The issue I've always had on things like a median income/tax relief - that might be £20k to one person and £75k to another as will depend on so many things, one example whether you live in a 2 bed terrace or a 8 bed detached and the relevant expense.
I spoke to Golfie today (which might be why he specifically talked about final salary) as one of my friends got promoted last tax year in the Met to Inspector. This means he's over his annual allowance by 44k and for him a big tax bill (he found out more than 6 months after the end of the tax year). This isn't some massive earner, about £58k plus bit of overtime so maybe £65k.
I've got mixed feelings about final salary people. On the one hand, they signed up for a career and a contract and are now being penalised in a way they didn't expect. Is it realistic to expect people to switch careers when that contract changes? Well, I think so, as that happens all the time in the private sector - you have to reinvent yourself and follow the money; and if they did that in numbers, we'd find out if the package was 'wrong' and needed to be upped. They are being subsidised by tax payers for something most tax payers wouldn't have a hope of acquiring - an index linked pension from the age of 45 for life. I've been working 30 years in the private sector and have never had access to a final salary scheme.
Cheap money is a big cause of this. But it's also, I think, people being unrealistic about how a pension can be funded. If you don't start work until you are 23, want to retire before you're sixty and hope to live until you are 85, that's maybe 35 years' earnings funding almost 30 years' income. Not too long ago, people would have worked almost 50 years to fund a handful of retirement years. Clearly we ALL are much better off than our forebears but people still like to moan. And I think that's where the next generations have got it wrong. I don't think they fully appreciate that, whatever it feels like, they are and will be much better off than the previous generations.
2 -
I explained to my mate the long term benefit of his promotion in retirement (as well as whilst still working) but for someone on that sort of salary to have to pay a double figure tax bill is a tough pill, he doesn't have a spare £10k+ especially as Gross the rise was only around £5-6k so it's near on 5 years net extra salary.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I agree, it's our money to start with and the government apparently wants to encourage saving (though I'm not convinced they really do in a consumer society ...).Rob7Lee said:
Not sure I agree, appreciate not 100% of the time, but hasn't the 8 bedroomed house owners more than likely paid for this 'subsidy' themselves in tax through their life? They are after all tax payers themselves? Some of the existing rules are already highly restrictive.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
That's my point, Rob. It should be national median income for the tax relief. If you choose to retire in an eight bedroom detached house, then that's a luxury and tax payers shouldn't be subsidising that excess income need.Rob7Lee said:
I think we are coming to the time of a flat, at least flat rate, of tax relief.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Can't argue the rules are too complicated. Worse, they keep changing them, which is very counter-productive given you are making decisions on a 30 year time frame.stevexreeve said:This is a good reminder that pension savings are, almost by definition, dealt with in circumstances of illness, dementia, depression or loneliness. The rules regarding tax on pensions are simply too complex, not fit for purpose and can be inhumane. They are used by wealthy people to play a harmless game with the Inland Revenue but young people are instinctively repulsed by the whole thing and have to be nudged into saving by having to opt out of government schemes.
Not a political point or aimed at the finance industry in general. And certainly not anybody here! Just felling a bit fed up this morning!
Ever since Gordon Brown raided pensions, every chancellor since has worked out that by the time people realise they've been robbed, it won't affect their re-election prospects - it's too remote for people to feel at the time it happens.
I've said here many times, I think the fairest way of doing things is to allow a flat overall amount of tax relief for everyone, sufficient for people to live build a pot big enough for.a (median) income. Anything above that should be a luxury and not supported by tax relief. I'd take a similar approach re energy use and how that is taxed.
The issue I've always had on things like a median income/tax relief - that might be £20k to one person and £75k to another as will depend on so many things, one example whether you live in a 2 bed terrace or a 8 bed detached and the relevant expense.
I spoke to Golfie today (which might be why he specifically talked about final salary) as one of my friends got promoted last tax year in the Met to Inspector. This means he's over his annual allowance by 44k and for him a big tax bill (he found out more than 6 months after the end of the tax year). This isn't some massive earner, about £58k plus bit of overtime so maybe £65k.
I've got mixed feelings about final salary people. On the one hand, they signed up for a career and a contract and are now being penalised in a way they didn't expect. Is it realistic to expect people to switch careers when that contract changes? Well, I think so, as that happens all the time in the private sector - you have to reinvent yourself and follow the money; and if they did that in numbers, we'd find out if the package was 'wrong' and needed to be upped. They are being subsidised by tax payers for something most tax payers wouldn't have a hope of acquiring - an index linked pension from the age of 45 for life. I've been working 30 years in the private sector and have never had access to a final salary scheme.
Cheap money is a big cause of this. But it's also, I think, people being unrealistic about how a pension can be funded. If you don't start work until you are 23, want to retire before you're sixty and hope to live until you are 85, that's maybe 35 years' earnings funding almost 30 years' income. Not too long ago, people would have worked almost 50 years to fund a handful of retirement years. Clearly we ALL are much better off than our forebears but people still like to moan. And I think that's where the next generations have got it wrong. I don't think they fully appreciate that, whatever it feels like, they are and will be much better off than the previous generations.
Although it sounds tough working for 40 years to fund up to another 40 years, if you start saving early enough compounding should see you alright. For me that's the most important, when you start and where you invest rather than necessarily the amount you pay (although clearly that helps), someone putting £4k in a pension at 23 for 40 years (with 7% growth and 2.5% increase in contribution a year) will have over £1m after those 40 years1 -
Lumped on Hiscox today at £8.50, they'll come good.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Whilst I don't disagree with you regarding how lucky a public sector worker is by having a FS pension (and the cost to the taxpayer to fund it), I do disagree with a couple of your points regarding "re-inventing" yourself or "following the money".WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I agree, it's our money to start with and the government apparently wants to encourage saving (though I'm not convinced they really do in a consumer society ...).Rob7Lee said:
Not sure I agree, appreciate not 100% of the time, but hasn't the 8 bedroomed house owners more than likely paid for this 'subsidy' themselves in tax through their life? They are after all tax payers themselves? Some of the existing rules are already highly restrictive.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
That's my point, Rob. It should be national median income for the tax relief. If you choose to retire in an eight bedroom detached house, then that's a luxury and tax payers shouldn't be subsidising that excess income need.Rob7Lee said:
I think we are coming to the time of a flat, at least flat rate, of tax relief.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
Can't argue the rules are too complicated. Worse, they keep changing them, which is very counter-productive given you are making decisions on a 30 year time frame.stevexreeve said:This is a good reminder that pension savings are, almost by definition, dealt with in circumstances of illness, dementia, depression or loneliness. The rules regarding tax on pensions are simply too complex, not fit for purpose and can be inhumane. They are used by wealthy people to play a harmless game with the Inland Revenue but young people are instinctively repulsed by the whole thing and have to be nudged into saving by having to opt out of government schemes.
Not a political point or aimed at the finance industry in general. And certainly not anybody here! Just felling a bit fed up this morning!
Ever since Gordon Brown raided pensions, every chancellor since has worked out that by the time people realise they've been robbed, it won't affect their re-election prospects - it's too remote for people to feel at the time it happens.
I've said here many times, I think the fairest way of doing things is to allow a flat overall amount of tax relief for everyone, sufficient for people to live build a pot big enough for.a (median) income. Anything above that should be a luxury and not supported by tax relief. I'd take a similar approach re energy use and how that is taxed.
The issue I've always had on things like a median income/tax relief - that might be £20k to one person and £75k to another as will depend on so many things, one example whether you live in a 2 bed terrace or a 8 bed detached and the relevant expense.
I spoke to Golfie today (which might be why he specifically talked about final salary) as one of my friends got promoted last tax year in the Met to Inspector. This means he's over his annual allowance by 44k and for him a big tax bill (he found out more than 6 months after the end of the tax year). This isn't some massive earner, about £58k plus bit of overtime so maybe £65k.
I've got mixed feelings about final salary people. On the one hand, they signed up for a career and a contract and are now being penalised in a way they didn't expect. Is it realistic to expect people to switch careers when that contract changes? Well, I think so, as that happens all the time in the private sector - you have to reinvent yourself and follow the money; and if they did that in numbers, we'd find out if the package was 'wrong' and needed to be upped. They are being subsidised by tax payers for something most tax payers wouldn't have a hope of acquiring - an index linked pension from the age of 45 for life. I've been working 30 years in the private sector and have never had access to a final salary scheme.
Cheap money is a big cause of this. But it's also, I think, people being unrealistic about how a pension can be funded. If you don't start work until you are 23, want to retire before you're sixty and hope to live until you are 85, that's maybe 35 years' earnings funding almost 30 years' income. Not too long ago, people would have worked almost 50 years to fund a handful of retirement years. Clearly we ALL are much better off than our forebears but people still like to moan. And I think that's where the next generations have got it wrong. I don't think they fully appreciate that, whatever it feels like, they are and will be much better off than the previous generations.
My extensive knowledge of FS pensions is largely around the NHS scheme seeing as I've been advising Doctors for the past 20 years & I would say that once trained as a Doctor a minisicue amount would ever consider leaving to do something else.
No one can take their pension before age 55 (except footballers & other elite sportsmen). The Police could retire at 50 but I dont know if that has now changed. The NHS used to have a retirement age of 60 (55 for those in mental health) but it is now your state pension age (although that is now changing again due to the Mcloud judgement). All NHS workers used to pay in 6% of their salary (5% for cleaners & porters) but that has changed to increase on line with incomes. Maximum now is 14.2% for the highest earners - which I'm sure you'll agree is quite jump from 6% and especially as these employees are also hit with the reduction of the Personal Allowance. For one example, GP partners are self employed & being an "owner" of a practice means they have to pay the employers contribution as well. Many GP's are paying 26% of their income in pension contributions on top of 40% tax & NI. Then they find 6 months after the end of the tax year those earnings have made their pension "grow" in excess of the AA & therefore have a further tax bill - with no way of knowing before the event or being able to do anything about it apart from to leave the pension scheme entirely - which has no impact on what has happened previously.
If you want to look at why you cant get an appointment with your GP on the day you ring them up you may want to look at how many have left in the past 6 years & how many aren't now joining up.3 -
Markets on the way to recovering all the losses that people were fretting about on here a week ago.
And to underline the point I made last week, that fund-based mug punters can't play the market short term even if they want to, here is an example.
On the 22Feb I tried to "buy the dip" with some Baillie Gifford Europe, on the H-L platform. I now find that according to the graph, I bought and then it immediately lost 4% of value the next day. WTAF?
Now, can anyone give me any example of another huge retail market where it is perfectly legal to sell the goods to punters and not be able to tell them, in advance, the price you will pay for those goods????
And can anyone give me a good reason why these unit trust funds cannot be priced and traded live in real time, when ETFs apparently can? I mean, I understand that it might be relatively complicated and expensive to make the necessary changes, but I don't think that's a good reason. It's just a convenience for the loaded, skillfully lobbying industry, allowing them to fleece mug punters. Just as for many years they fleeced us with their ridiculous, and as it turns out, entirely unnecessary 5% bid-offer spread pricing.
There, I feel better now
0 -
Currently prices are set once a day for funds (I believe), usually after close. ETF's change price throughout the day and are listed on exchanges so you can get real time pricing.
But you make a fair point, I'm sure it's possible, but doubt that many people who buy funds are day traders, in fact most probably hold for months if not years, so maybe the overall need isn't there?
If you want real time then currently don't trade in funds but trade yourself with individual shares or ETF's or Bitcoin!0 -
I'm not a day trader either. However I do think that if I can buy something 4% cheaper if I stay alert and buy when the price is offered, that 4% is worth banking, no?Rob7Lee said:Currently prices are set once a day for funds (I believe), usually after close. ETF's change price throughout the day and are listed on exchanges so you can get real time pricing.
But you make a fair point, I'm sure it's possible, but doubt that many people who buy funds are day traders, in fact most probably hold for months if not years, so maybe the overall need isn't there?
If you want real time then currently don't trade in funds but trade yourself with individual shares or ETF's or Bitcoin!
As far as I am aware, at no point in a given day can I go on the H-L platform or any other, ascertain the current price of a given fund, and then buy at that price. That is frankly an infringement of the basic law of contract.1 -
Don't disagree, not knowledgeable enough to know quite how much or what wrk would be required but would need to be worldwide I guess.PragueAddick said:
I'm not a day trader either. However I do think that if I can buy something 4% cheaper if I stay alert and buy when the price is offered, that 4% is worth banking, no?Rob7Lee said:Currently prices are set once a day for funds (I believe), usually after close. ETF's change price throughout the day and are listed on exchanges so you can get real time pricing.
But you make a fair point, I'm sure it's possible, but doubt that many people who buy funds are day traders, in fact most probably hold for months if not years, so maybe the overall need isn't there?
If you want real time then currently don't trade in funds but trade yourself with individual shares or ETF's or Bitcoin!
As far as I am aware, at no point in a given day can I go on the H-L platform or any other, ascertain the current price of a given fund, and then buy at that price. That is frankly an infringement of the basic law of contract.0 -
No mention of Pension tax relief changing yet in the budget.....0
-
PragueAddick said:
I'm not a day trader either. However I do think that if I can buy something 4% cheaper if I stay alert and buy when the price is offered, that 4% is worth banking, no?Rob7Lee said:Currently prices are set once a day for funds (I believe), usually after close. ETF's change price throughout the day and are listed on exchanges so you can get real time pricing.
But you make a fair point, I'm sure it's possible, but doubt that many people who buy funds are day traders, in fact most probably hold for months if not years, so maybe the overall need isn't there?
If you want real time then currently don't trade in funds but trade yourself with individual shares or ETF's or Bitcoin!
As far as I am aware, at no point in a given day can I go on the H-L platform or any other, ascertain the current price of a given fund, and then buy at that price. That is frankly an infringement of the basic law of contract.
how does it differ from buying six bottles of wine in waitrose yesterday then finding out today there's an offer of 25% off six?
0 -
Because you knew the price you bought at yesterday.IdleHans said:PragueAddick said:
I'm not a day trader either. However I do think that if I can buy something 4% cheaper if I stay alert and buy when the price is offered, that 4% is worth banking, no?Rob7Lee said:Currently prices are set once a day for funds (I believe), usually after close. ETF's change price throughout the day and are listed on exchanges so you can get real time pricing.
But you make a fair point, I'm sure it's possible, but doubt that many people who buy funds are day traders, in fact most probably hold for months if not years, so maybe the overall need isn't there?
If you want real time then currently don't trade in funds but trade yourself with individual shares or ETF's or Bitcoin!
As far as I am aware, at no point in a given day can I go on the H-L platform or any other, ascertain the current price of a given fund, and then buy at that price. That is frankly an infringement of the basic law of contract.
how does it differ from buying six bottles of wine in waitrose yesterday then finding out today there's an offer of 25% off six?
For funds, you don't know the exact price I think is the point being made.3 -
And I'm also an H-L customer. You see a price on their site and execute a deal...but it can take them days to actually carry out the transaction - by which time the price can of changed. Very annoying and I've been caught out myself. At least in Waitrose you pay the price at the time you see it!valleynick66 said:
Because you knew the price you bought at yesterday.IdleHans said:PragueAddick said:
I'm not a day trader either. However I do think that if I can buy something 4% cheaper if I stay alert and buy when the price is offered, that 4% is worth banking, no?Rob7Lee said:Currently prices are set once a day for funds (I believe), usually after close. ETF's change price throughout the day and are listed on exchanges so you can get real time pricing.
But you make a fair point, I'm sure it's possible, but doubt that many people who buy funds are day traders, in fact most probably hold for months if not years, so maybe the overall need isn't there?
If you want real time then currently don't trade in funds but trade yourself with individual shares or ETF's or Bitcoin!
As far as I am aware, at no point in a given day can I go on the H-L platform or any other, ascertain the current price of a given fund, and then buy at that price. That is frankly an infringement of the basic law of contract.
how does it differ from buying six bottles of wine in waitrose yesterday then finding out today there's an offer of 25% off six?
For funds, you don't know the exact price I think is the point being made.3 -
Good rant. That said, enjoyed it and you make a good point.PragueAddick said:Markets on the way to recovering all the losses that people were fretting about on here a week ago.
And to underline the point I made last week, that fund-based mug punters can't play the market short term even if they want to, here is an example.
On the 22Feb I tried to "buy the dip" with some Baillie Gifford Europe, on the H-L platform. I now find that according to the graph, I bought and then it immediately lost 4% of value the next day. WTAF?
Now, can anyone give me any example of another huge retail market where it is perfectly legal to sell the goods to punters and not be able to tell them, in advance, the price you will pay for those goods????
And can anyone give me a good reason why these unit trust funds cannot be priced and traded live in real time, when ETFs apparently can? I mean, I understand that it might be relatively complicated and expensive to make the necessary changes, but I don't think that's a good reason. It's just a convenience for the loaded, skillfully lobbying industry, allowing them to fleece mug punters. Just as for many years they fleeced us with their ridiculous, and as it turns out, entirely unnecessary 5% bid-offer spread pricing.
There, I feel better now
The bid-offer spread pricing hasn't totally gone away. For example, the last bond fund I bought was the Blackrock Corporate Bond Fund and that is still using bid-offer pricing.1
