There is great debate among investors and financial services professionals about whether buying shares in companies or units of funds is a better idea. Clearly, there are advocates for both sides of the argument and, now that you will have another £15,240 to invest in either (or both) through your ISA, it seems to be a good time to revisit the question.
Diversification
While it is possible to gain access to a wide variety of companies in different sectors, which operate in different regions, and that are of different sizes, funds allow you to have far more diversification than do shares. In fact, even if you invest all of your cash in just one fund, you are still likely to have more diversification than you could achieve through shares alone. For example, you may wish to invest in UK-listed companies and, while your portfolio may contain 20-40 stocks, a fund could have literally hundreds of companies included within it.
Costs
Shares, however, are a much cheaper way to invest in the long run. For example, you can invest for as little as £2 per trade (using aggregated orders), which means that even if you buy 40 stocks with this year’s allowance, you will still only pay £80 in your first year in dealing charges. This works out as just 0.5% of the annual allowance, which is the same as stamp duty and, moving forward, the only other cost will be to sell the shares a number of years down the line.
Should you invest £1,000 in Berkshire Hathaway right now?
When investing expert Mark Rogers has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the flagship Motley Fool Share Advisor newsletter he has run for nearly a decade has provided thousands of paying members with top stock recommendations from the UK and US markets. And right now, Mark thinks there are 6 standout stocks that investors should consider buying. Want to see if Berkshire Hathaway made the list?
Funds, however, can charge much more. For example, even a tracker fund will charge upwards of 0.35% per annum, while an actively managed fund will typically charge 1% or 1.5% per annum. So, assuming you invest £15,240 right now and nothing else for five years, and the value of your portfolio remains at the initial level throughout the period, you will pay £266 in total for a tracker fund and up to £1143 in total for an actively managed fund. That’s significantly more than the cost of dealing in shares and, for many investors, is a deal breaker.
Performance
Clearly, the people running funds are professionals and, in general, they will be more knowledgeable than part-time, private investors. However, there is still no clear cut evidence that fund managers, in general, outperform private investors in the long run once the cost of their services has been deducted. So, if it’s better performance you’re after, then funds may not be the answer.
Time
Of course, it is often argued that funds require less time than shares, with investing in companies needing vast amounts of research and funds requiring relatively little. However, some funds are better than others, just as some companies are more appealing than others, and so, realistically, you are likely to spend just as long finding the right fund manager as you are the right stocks. Certainly, logic says that you should be spending at least as much time performing due diligence when you trust someone else with your hard-earned cash as you do when you are making your own investment decisions.
So, while funds do make diversification easier, in today’s internet age buying shares is so straightforward, cheap and information is so freely available that for most investors buying stocks with their ISA allowance could be the most appealing option. Certainly, mistakes will occur, but with patience and a long term view you can start to build a comfortable retirement through buying slices of high quality companies with this year’s ISA allowance.
