If it's typical for this kind of fund, I think any investor would have to ask why they would pay anyone 4% p.a. to invest their money.
I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just saying Brendan Investment's annual management fees are in line with other similar funds,
Fair enough, but would you agree that a 4% p.a. fee for the return profile on offer here is an enormous fee to pay.
Bronte said:On another point I don't understand why everybody dislikes Mr. Hobbs, he's just peddling his particular product for his own benefit naturally, people don't have to invest in this if they don't want to? It's not a rip off, you read the small print and you choose to partake in the gamble or not - for that is what it is.
In my opinion it's not a rip-off if it simply levies higher charges than other comparable products. It could be though if the charges are not clearly divulged such that the punter can make a reasonably informed buying decision. Oddly enough I seem to recall Eddie Hobbs himself attributing the term "rip-off" to simple instances of high pricing (compared to alternatives on offer) but I would not agree with his stance on such matters.On the contrary, it is a rip off. Compare Brendan Investments' fees with Friends First's Insight Property IV fund. This is a geared fund investing in UK commercial property. The Friends First fund has been running for just under 2 1/2 years and is intended to have an approximately five year term. So far, it's showing a gain after fees of 81.4% - about 27% compounded annually. If Brendan Investments do as well they will be patting themselves soundly on the back. The Friends First fees are 0.75% p.a. of the value of assets under management and a final performance fee of 10% of gains over 10% p.a. - Brendan Investments will charge 1.00% p.a. of the value of assets under management and a final performance fee of 20% of gains over 8% p.a. 'Nuff said . . .
In my opinion it's not a rip-off if it simply levies higher charges than other comparable products. It could be though if the charges are not clearly divulged such that the punter can make a reasonably informed buying decision.
Well to be fair I get all my financial investment advice from the Evening Herald!!!
The comparison of charges as a % of equity is bogus.
You won't get one Bank, stockbroker, private banker or developer criticising this public scheme because it is better than most on charges and transparency. Honestly I think some anonymous posters should try to be more objective and not engage in settling grudges which comes across very strongly.
The performance bonus hurdle above 8% IRR at 20% is reasonable given the zero cost entry of the PLC and is only payable at the end. It is also superior to many development type syndicates that charge "Success" fees at exorbitant levels on top of higher AMC's and Bonuses.
You won't get one Bank, stockbroker, private banker or developer criticising this public scheme because it is better than most on charges and transparency.
Honestly I think some anonymous posters should try to be more objective
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?