2Settimana·

What do you generally think of the Edmond de Rothschild fund house and what do you think of the fund?

The fund has the msci world as a benchmark and aims to outperform it over 5 years, it also performs better in the long term (see pictures) than $ACWI and $HMWO (+0,46%) but also performs quite similarly... if you compare it to a pure tech etf it performed better than the Rothschild (msci world 30% tech, Rothschild 40%)

I'm actually more of a fan of etfs than funds, this is an experiment, let's see what comes out of it, but I'd be interested to know what you think of the Edmond de Rothschild fund house and what you think of the fund

happy new year

02.01

EDN

Edmond de Rothschild Big Data A

Acquistato a 315,75 €

4 Commenti

Korrekturensohn@Korrekturensohn

2Settimana

Active funds are uninteresting. Of course there are funds that outperform the benchmark. However, this is predominantly the result of chance and not skill. If you factor out the fees, you are back at the level of the benchmark.

•

Julian@MoneyISnotREAL

2Settimana

3% front-end load
2.06% management costs p.a.
Transaction costs (0.45%) and management fee (1.6%)

If I compare the $HMWO with the $EDNP over the last 5 years:
$HMWO +85.9% (source: extraetf)
$EDNP +83.7% (source: Finanzen net)

Your charts are over a longer period than 5 years (see hook "Coronacrash") and probably start with the comparison from 2015.

Due to the fees, the fund must generate a much higher return each year than the MSCI World. Initially, the costs appear to be very low, but over the long term, they can add up to more than "2%" of the final assets after 30 years (often more like a factor of 2-3, which is what the ETF is worth more).

It might make more sense to take a closer look at a few companies and add them to the portfolio as individual stocks.

•

Derebete@Derebete

2Settimana

@MoneyISnotREAL i made the comparison via getquin, i think that always shows the total time in which both existed,

i'm mainly invested in individual shares and etfs, this is more of an experiment to at least try it out properly, the position is less than 2.5% of my portfolio

••

Julian@MoneyISnotREAL

2Settimana

@Derebete If I take the lower comparison (219% vs. 196%) it is before costs.

If you do the math, the fund did worse after costs.

I can tell you from my own experience how it is with active funds. They simply cost money. Over time, you do see an increase in value, but not the opposition costs or the missed gains from ETFs.

•