[FONT="]what’s the point in helping consumers to drive down the drag effect of charges from 1.5% p.a. to, say, 1.25% p.a. through a huge effort by the Regulator if consumers take this cost saving and invest it in funds taking investment risk they do not understand, e.g. a leveraged or property fund with a high level of gearing in a marketplace about to face a significant property downturn and where there could be the complete loss of capital?
Most consumers haven’t a clue about what fund they are investing in or its relative level of risk.
To be sure, that is a blood curdling warning which should see most people off. Better still would have been "It is for gamblers, not for...", but let's not be churlish.I loved EH's comment in the Sunday times where he says "I've made it clear this is for investors, not savers."
I suspect that the Brendan fund has flopped. A flop was always on the cards once they selected 31 October, the Pay & File tax deadline, as their subscription deadline. Their marketing guys must have been asleep when they picked this date. Either that or they were totally over-confident. Such apparent carelessness at this stage would imho not bode well for the eventual success of the fund.I thought they were aiming for 50mio, not "exceeding 10mio". What implications does this have for costs?
Seems very suspect that they've pushed the deadline and also increased the maximum investment amount.
The 250m is the leveraged amount. They were looking for €50m capital.If the company believes it can raise more equity, ( the max is extremely high at €250m) by a one month extension it is reasonable for it to do so. In the interim it is unreasonable to expect it announce its running capital base given the number of people who wish it not succeed.
The set up costs are fixed at 1.5% equity raised subject to a cap of 750k which kicks in at 50m