![barry monies barry monies](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gJtcEcvD8iE/maxresdefault.jpg)
![barry monies barry monies](https://www.scotcat.com/images/b_batensoda3.jpg)
Another downside is where the multi-manager concept is run by major investment houses and they only use in-house funds. The downside is that the multi-manager fund may not be providing as active management as the investor and adviser may be expecting.
#Barry monies free
This leaves them free to concentrate in providing more financial planning and advice to their clients. The advantage to advisers is they do not have to take on the responsibility of monitoring the funds and they have effectively sub-contracted that task. The advantage to investors is that the responsibility for the asset allocation, fund selection, monitoring of performance and making changes as needed clearly lays with the multi-fund manager. However, we now have many companies introducing ranges of so called multi-manager funds but are they really of benefit to investors? The answer is yes if care and advice is taken before purchasing any such product.Ī true multi-manager fund is one where the performance of individual funds within the product are monitored and active management is taking place. The day-to-day management of your investments are handled by each of the companies you have chosen and we are merely providing you with a platform to use to enable you to benefit from a spread of investments within one contract.” That means these products should state: “We do not provide any active management or, indeed, any management of the portfolio built or any of the funds you have selected. What such people think is not the fault of the company or adviser, but I do think all literature should make it much clearer what is being provided and what is not.
![barry monies barry monies](https://content.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1_S-1uQEtt7YKlO5Qyi8_LXQ.png)
I have questioned people who have used this approach and they think that the idea of having access to the range of fund managers and funds within such a contract is because the company do, in fact, manage the funds selected. I think the problem lies with the word multi, as many investors appear to be mistakenly under the impression that Skandia would be managing their investments on a day-to day-basis. Skandia for instance has its MultiFunds range which can be used for Pep transfer plans, Isas, Isa transfer plans, pensions and unit-trust accounts. But the way many such products are marketed is, perhaps, misleading. Conversely, if the funds made money, the client would not rush forward expressing their thanks.Ĭlearly, active management of any portfolio built using the MultiFunds approach was never going to be provided by the likes of Skandia. The client may even go as far as to lay the blame for any loss on the company their money was invested with. Therefore, when the client finds that their funds have dropped in value, they will lay blame on those companies or possibly the adviser who sold the contract. This is commendable, but no active management is carried out in relation to the funds. Many companies such as Skandia and Selestia, while apparently giving clients a multi-manager approach, are in effect giving one the ability to invest across a broad range of funds. The public clearly has a misconception over multi-manager. Over recent years, a new breed of investment style has been introduced – multi manager – but are investors really getting what the label says on the can?