-
Cheers, that's a bit clearer but I guess doesn't really clear up @platypus original assertion that Nutmeg isn't a sensible place to invest as the fees are too high.
Basically I'm wondering whether to stick with Nutmeg or not and whether the benefit from their actively managed fund (given I'm not going to be researching what to invest in myself) offsets their higher fees.
aggi-
Cheers, that's a bit clearer but I guess doesn't really clear up @platypus original assertion that Nutmeg isn't a sensible place to invest as the fees are too high.
If you look at the Lang Cat report, they actually call out NM as a fairly good choice - providing you are happy to use what they describe as Do It For Me products.
Comparing NM and Vanguard is a bit curious because NM Do Stuff For You and buy across funds (they even buy Vanguard funds). Vanguard on the other hand only let you invest in their funds and do very little for you - except in the cases where you can buy in to their Funds of Funds which give you pre-packaged diversification. But they aren't recommended to you - you need to do your own research and do your own balancing and make adjustments if your attitude to risk or goals change.
-
the benefit from their actively managed fund (given I'm not going to be researching what to invest in myself) offsets their higher fees.
My understanding of the concensus position on this is that fees outweigh any potential benefit of active management, in aggregate, over time.
If we could know whether one thing would do better than another thing in the near term, we wouldn't be writing about it on here.
Howard
ChasnotRobert
You can chose between Fixed (passive - with a yearly review) and Managed, Managed has the higher fee, obvs.
This is what I was getting at with my kinda apples / oranges - Nutmeg / Vanguard comparison. No point chasing the lowest fee if it pulls you in to platforms that fundamentally do not meet your requirements as an investor.