hi just need a bit of advice , 3 yrs this november i started a investment thing with my bank which was 260 euro's a month for 5 yrs and beyond since it has started it has lost 2100 euro so obviously i am nervous about it , i just want to know is there any point in or is it a good idea to keep going with it and hope that the markets improve .i won't said which bank it is with but the fund is a 50/50 . 50 percent balanced investment fund and 50 percent irish property fund .I should be able to keep up the payments but why should i when it might be worth nothing after it and also do you know if you get a penalty for leaving early thanks .
is it time to cut my losses
- Thread starter robert18
- Start date
voodoobazza
Registered User
- Messages
- 57
Check your policy document to see if there are early penalty charges, I assume there are.
If can afford it you are purchasing units in the fund cheaply at present.
On the other hand, if you wish to save on deposit, you could switch from the Irish Property Fund to the Cash fund for a while until this volitile market settles down.
Check the original Sales material as to charges etc. as it may be penal to exit early.
If can afford it you are purchasing units in the fund cheaply at present.
On the other hand, if you wish to save on deposit, you could switch from the Irish Property Fund to the Cash fund for a while until this volitile market settles down.
Check the original Sales material as to charges etc. as it may be penal to exit early.
Check with your financial advisor or the person in the Bank who sold you the investment. It is probably going to be difficult to get a straight enough answer but pulling out of all types of investments whether shares or not will definitely contribute to what is happening in the economy at the moment, not that you should be a martyr, I am not suggesting that! Source more information if you can and check any penalty clauses. If it was me I would give it even another week or two to see how things start progressing in the US with Obama now at the helm cause anything positive that may eminate from there will have an affect on global markets.
M
mercman
Guest
How long is a piece of string ?? Likely to take a couple of years at least. It also depends on which type of equities you are invested with.
I would be looking at a minimum of 10 years for this type of investment so if it was me I would continue investing knowing that my monthly contribution is buying more units now given that markets have fallen substantially. I look at equity investments over a ten to fifteen year period and property over a twenty year plus period.
I think I shall take this advice. Demoivre I have paid over 10,000 into my fund and it's only worth 6,700 now. Do you think I will get back what I paid into it? The fund is made up of the following
AIB Managed fund series 2 - 50%
AIB Multi-track fund - 50%
Allocation rate 97%
I contribute 100 euros a month.
M
mercman
Guest
You should go back and try and negotiate a better allocation rate. What you have been given is pathetic.
does the allocation rate mean that Arklife will receive 3% of the profit and only 97% will be allocated to the fund? so out of every E100 they receive E3? How can I negotiate with them as I can't exactly threaten to move it as cashing in now I would lose so much
If you look at this chart http://seekingalpha.com/article/116077-jeremy-siegel-stocks-for-the-short-term taken from Prof Jeremy Siegel, author of ‘Stocks for the Long Run’, you can see that over long durations no other asset class gives a return like stocks, with cash being a real loser, and gold a dead duck. But what constitutes the ‘long run’ (i.e. the time period within which (to date) any investment in stocks gave a positive return) may well be a very long time. But it would follow from Prof Siegel’s research that one should stay put and not cash in.
Presumably the stocks in this chart are US equities only? What about performance of stocks on exchanges in Eastern Europe and Russia before the iron curtain came down? Can you extrapolate that these returns are possible for stock exchanges in emerging economies that are not democratic, innovative and competitive, and where the state is very often the invisible hand. I think only very limited conclusions can be taken from this chart; and it provides no guidance for geographically 'diversified' equities. I think Buffett makes the point that being an american citizen in the 20th century was basically a lotto win for him and his ability to invest.
M
mercman
Guest
pAnTs, I assume that you are a different OP than the original ??
george.shaw
Registered User
- Messages
- 252
It is difficult to argue re stocks outperformance of bonds, cash and bills from 1800 to today. However, it is very easy to argue with Siegel's data and assertions regarding stocks outperformance of gold since 1800.
The phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics" comes to mind. Of course stocks outperformed gold since 1800 as gold did not 'perform' at all. It did not need to 'perform' at all as gold was money. Every single dollar was backed by gold at varying fixed prices up until 1971:
The phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics" comes to mind. Of course stocks outperformed gold since 1800 as gold did not 'perform' at all. It did not need to 'perform' at all as gold was money. Every single dollar was backed by gold at varying fixed prices up until 1971:
US stocks, bonds, bills were all priced in dollars which was priced in gold. Thus stocks, bonds and bills were under the Gold Standard priced in gold.
Incidentally, since gold has been freely traded in 1971, it has outperformed the Dow Jones and the S&P 500.
Diversify.
Incidentally, since gold has been freely traded in 1971, it has outperformed the Dow Jones and the S&P 500.
Diversify.
Askar, that is good point, similar to the one Naseem Talib makes on page 165 of ‘Fooled by Randomness’. Siegel’s research AKAIK relates to US equities. But, e.g. ABN Amro’s ‘Global Investment Returns Survey 2008’ says that: “An investment in UK equities of £100 at the start of 1900 would, with dividends reinvested, have grown to over £2.2 million by the end of 2007, a return of 9.7% p.a.” and that “. . . since 1900, equities are the best-performing asset class in every [developed market] country” This is the same conclusion as Siegel’s that equities (at least in developed markets, which make up 85% of world market cap) are the best performing asset class in the long run. So, unless global markets are about to change significantly in the future, it would be prudent to remain invested in equities for the long run and not cash in. (But the long run could be a very long time.) However, that is not to say that remaining in an IE managed fund of the type discussed in this forum does not carry certain non-market risks. For example, if the fund manager was unable to safeguard the value of your investment when markets fell, does he / she have the ability to recoup your loss when / if it recovers; and (b) will poor initial allocations and / or high management fees significantly reduce the recovery of your investment?