scotia wrote:but nobody who mentions fees as a concern has ever answered...
For a Fund Manager to consistently beat the market over a long period is a difficult task, and to do it while pocketing a sizeable annual fee makes it highly improbable.
That's true, in fact so difficult that very many of them consistently don't beat the market, regardless of fees!
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyi ... ecade.htmlBut active v passive is another argument. What I can't fathom is why fees can be so influential in some people's decision-making process - whether it's 0.5% or 1.5%, surely all that matters is what you are getting for your money? In the case of CMHY, if you are happy with its history and the underlying portfolio generating the 5.46% yield on your prospective investment then why would a "fee" (that you will never see or feel) deter you? Similarly for growth (I have used this example before), I hold The Biotech Growth Trust (BIOG) in order to have exposure to a good spread of biotech shares. Apparently it has a TER of 1.10% but, having seen the holding 4-bag over the past few years, I'm very glad it didn't occur to me to allow this to put me off investing!
I don't see people considering the management costs of FTSE 100 companies before investing (I believe the CEO of WPP alone "earned" well over 2% of his company's net income last year). If you were to compare the total salaries of the boards and senior management at these companies (as a proportion of profits/market cap) I expect they would differ significantly, but who cares? All that matters to the investor is how the companies perform and what SP growth and/or dividends they generate. In the same way, I can't see the relevance of a fund manager's percentage cut when assessing an IT - the net performance is all that concerns me.
Oh well, just a harmless puzzlement I can live with...