Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

Hello,


I would be grateful if anyone could give me some general guidance on
basic issues.
I am interested to invest in a fund, I have called the company that
manages the fund and they told me I can only buy through an
intermediately (broker or bank).
The problem I found is that initially I was told from the managing
company that the minimum I could invest is =A35000 and after some time I
was told =A310000.
Is there any document that would set these figures so that I am sure
what they say is right?

The same I would like to ask about commissions and charges. What
documents should I ask from either the intermediately (for their
charges) and the managing company (for their charges)?

I am doing this for the first time and I am trying to find the most
suitable way of going through.


many thanks for the help


Markus

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I would be grateful if anyone could give me some general guidance on
> basic issues.
> I am interested to invest in a fund, I have called the company that
> manages the fund and they told me I can only buy through an
> intermediately (broker or bank).
> The problem I found is that initially I was told from the managing
> company that the minimum I could invest is =A35000 and after some time I
> was told =A310000.
> Is there any document that would set these figures so that I am sure
> what they say is right?
>
> The same I would like to ask about commissions and charges. What
> documents should I ask from either the intermediately (for their
> charges) and the managing company (for their charges)?
>
> I am doing this for the first time and I am trying to find the most
> suitable way of going through.
>
>
> many thanks for the help
>

A British mutual fund? I don't know what the rules are but do they
have a prospectus?
>=20
> Markus

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

<> wrote in message
news:
Hello,


I would be grateful if anyone could give me some general guidance on
basic issues.
I am interested to invest in a fund, I have called the company that
manages the fund and they told me I can only buy through an
intermediately (broker or bank).
The problem I found is that initially I was told from the managing
company that the minimum I could invest is £5000 and after some time I
was told £10000.
Is there any document that would set these figures so that I am sure
what they say is right?

The same I would like to ask about commissions and charges. What
documents should I ask from either the intermediately (for their
charges) and the managing company (for their charges)?

I am doing this for the first time and I am trying to find the most
suitable way of going through.


many thanks for the help


Markus

Are you talking about a Unit Trust? If so there are many Fund management
companies that will sell them to you direct but most managed funds charge an
up-front load of about 5.5% so you lose that much immediately. On the other
hand there are many fund supermarkets that sell funds at a discount so you
only pay about 1.25 to 1.5% initially. Then there are a few no-load funds,
mainly index funds, which make no initial charge. The minimum initial amount
invested is usually £1,000 but there may be a few funds that accept £500.
Any less is not worth investing as the gains from, say, a 10% increase are
only £100 or £50 which is not going to buy you much. Then there are funds
that allow monthly saving of amounts as small as £20/month. If you buy finds
through a financial advisor he or she will almost certainly charge you the
full 5.5% fee so this is the most expensive way of getting into funds and
therefore to be avoided. Have a look at www.morningstar.co.uk for details of
funds available.

What company and fund are you considering?

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

wrote:
.... I am interested to invest in a fund,

A fund, the fund, any fund, is as well a legal contract - issues
pertaining to the question of means the issuing agent will impose - a
fund's prospectus, hopefully, should contain.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

What country are you in?

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

Hi,


Thanks for replying.
I am in the UK. The fund I am considering is one in the Magna series of
funds managed by Charlemagne Capital.
It seems what I need is the prospectus of that fund. The problem might
be that the prospectus would be for the intermediately and not for
private customers? So it would set the rules for the intermediately? I
will ask for it anyway.

What about any document that sets the rules for doing business with the
intermediately.
Would this be written by the intermediately itself or by another
regulating institution like the FSA?

I have the impression that the cheapest way is to go through a bank as
an intermediately. Am I right? A bank told me they charge only =A312 per
deal (I will only do one purchace of about =A35000).
While a broker told me 1.5% one time buy fee.


Thanks

Markus

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

Markus

There are several quite worrying things about this.

First you use the term intermediately at least four times when the correct
term is intermediary. Four times cannot be a spelling mistake and suggests
you are unfamiliar with finance, a dangerous condition in an area that is
rife with fraud.

Then you quote a company called Charlemagne Capital. As I have never heard
of this I looked it up in the UK data provider I use, ShareScope, which
lists 6,821 Unit Trusts, 976 Investment trusts and 3,079 shares, but none of
these were Charlemagne Capital. This company, whatever it is, and if it
actually exists, is not quoted on the London Stock Exchange and is probably
not regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It may exist as an
offshore or foreign company or it may just be a name attached to an
accommodation address. I could be wronging them of course but there is a
strong possibility that any money you supply to them will disappear and you
will never get any of it back. \you should only deal with large,
well-established companies regulated by the FSA. A company like Fidelity,
HSBC, Merrill Lynch etc. that everyone has heard of and really exists is the
sort to go for. Don't give a penny to these Charlatan people as they will
almost certainly turn out to be.

<> wrote in message
news:
Hi,


Thanks for replying.
I am in the UK. The fund I am considering is one in the Magna series of
funds managed by Charlemagne Capital.
It seems what I need is the prospectus of that fund. The problem might
be that the prospectus would be for the intermediately and not for
private customers? So it would set the rules for the intermediately? I
will ask for it anyway.

What about any document that sets the rules for doing business with the
intermediately.
Would this be written by the intermediately itself or by another
regulating institution like the FSA?

I have the impression that the cheapest way is to go through a bank as
an intermediately. Am I right? A bank told me they charge only £12 per
deal (I will only do one purchace of about £5000).
While a broker told me 1.5% one time buy fee.


Thanks

Markus

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Then you quote a company called Charlemagne Capital. As I have never heard
> of this I looked it up in the UK data provider I use, ShareScope, which
> lists 6,821 Unit Trusts, 976 Investment trusts and 3,079 shares, but none of
> these were Charlemagne Capital. This company, whatever it is, and if it
> actually exists, is not quoted on the London Stock Exchange and is probably
> not regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It may exist as an
> offshore or foreign company or it may just be a name attached to an
> accommodation address. I could be wronging them of course but there is a
> strong possibility that any money you supply to them will disappear and you
> will never get any of it back. \you should only deal with large,
> well-established companies regulated by the FSA. A company like Fidelity,
> HSBC, Merrill Lynch etc. that everyone has heard of and really exists is the
> sort to go for. Don't give a penny to these Charlatan people as they will
> almost certainly turn out to be.

Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes ("UCIS"), the promotion of
which within the UK or from the UK is severely restricted by statute
[UK or FSA statutues, one may presume -flash]. Such funds are only made
available to Intermediate Customers and Market Counterparties as
defined by the FSA and to persons falling within the Financial Services
and Markets Act 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes)
(Exemptions) Order 2001. This website is therefore aimed only at
persons with professional experience of participating in unregulated
schemes and any other person who visits this website should not rely
upon it. [ ]

They appear to be in the up-&-up for Turks, Cossaks or Mongols. And,
I'll presume, a welcome additon to UK savvier offerings. I have 3
years secondary school experience in Ankara, so l may as well add my
seconds and vouch for Magna Turkey Fund C. Right in there with
Templeton Russia for weekly 5%-s. Although, I'd rather reserve a put
on FXI.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

Thanks, Flash, for filling in more info. Not quite as dodgy as I suggested
it might be, but anyone who reads the website is unlikely to want to go
further. Unregulated is the key word. Personally I would not touch anything
like this as a home for my hard-earned cash. With nearly 7,000 Unit Trusts
available in conventional fund companies regulated by the FSA, why risk
getting involved with something like this?

David

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>> Then you quote a company called Charlemagne Capital. As I have never
>> heard
>> of this I looked it up in the UK data provider I use, ShareScope, which
>> lists 6,821 Unit Trusts, 976 Investment trusts and 3,079 shares, but none
>> of
>> these were Charlemagne Capital. This company, whatever it is, and if it
>> actually exists, is not quoted on the London Stock Exchange and is
>> probably
>> not regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It may exist as
>> an
>> offshore or foreign company or it may just be a name attached to an
>> accommodation address. I could be wronging them of course but there is a
>> strong possibility that any money you supply to them will disappear and
>> you
>> will never get any of it back. \you should only deal with large,
>> well-established companies regulated by the FSA. A company like Fidelity,
>> HSBC, Merrill Lynch etc. that everyone has heard of and really exists is
>> the
>> sort to go for. Don't give a penny to these Charlatan people as they will
>> almost certainly turn out to be.
>
> Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes ("UCIS"), the promotion of
> which within the UK or from the UK is severely restricted by statute
> [UK or FSA statutues, one may presume -flash]. Such funds are only made
> available to Intermediate Customers and Market Counterparties as
> defined by the FSA and to persons falling within the Financial Services
> and Markets Act 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes)
> (Exemptions) Order 2001. This website is therefore aimed only at
> persons with professional experience of participating in unregulated
> schemes and any other person who visits this website should not rely
> upon it. [ ]
>
> They appear to be in the up-&-up for Turks, Cossaks or Mongols. And,
> I'll presume, a welcome additon to UK savvier offerings. I have 3
> years secondary school experience in Ankara, so l may as well add my
> seconds and vouch for Magna Turkey Fund C. Right in there with
> Templeton Russia for weekly 5%-s. Although, I'd rather reserve a put
> on FXI.
>

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Thanks, Flash, for filling in more info. Not quite as dodgy as I suggested
> it might be, but anyone who reads the website is unlikely to want to go
> further. Unregulated is the key word. Personally I would not touch anythi=
ng
> like this as a home for my hard-earned cash. With nearly 7,000 Unit Trusts
> available in conventional fund companies regulated by the FSA, why risk
> getting involved with something like this?

Money's the fore and risk the surname in the investment game. Like
life, one must assume risks in order to live. Home, to me, I suppose
has been often enough vagabond affairs afar enough to sense a
comparitive wealth. There are 7K funds are available to UK investors.
When looking for that figure awhile ago, I didn't arrive at it because
what I really wanted involved an associated issue. I was after
disparity. A figure not so far from extensible family, apparently,
though then I was wondering how your fellow countrymen see it by
sufficiency in reckoning venture capital for a fair sense of trade I'm
granted by the SEC. Working within a US survey over equity, hybrid,
bond and money markets, I encompass a brunt of =A32T assets over 8K
hearth funds; there's 2K of CEFs, with an oddly contrasting number of
300 ETFs, in addition to 1K of short-term funds for the equity minded.
Roughshod off a list of 2004 ICI tables. UITs appear to be another
breed of cat when a trust intermediary is involved. Like CEFs, an
initial UIT public block offering is engaged, within a ownership pact
of secondary market intermediaries, with or without rights accorded to
sell back unit issues to the issuing sponsorship. What Markus appears
to be after is a tertiary wager granted by secondaries. UITs deal in
less common insolvency issues extraneous involvement suggests, lacking
a convention associated within a bias for readily ascertainable net
asset values, hence the need for an intermediary's intercession.

'Ireland only keeps my dry.' Bono's father. -U2

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

OK thanks guys, you have put me in worry and I am starting thinking of
keeping my money.
The fact is that the company has only formed 5 years ago so I am not
sure how long they will live.
The other thing is that they keep sending me informative emails about
the performance of their funds where they told me this is done by
mistake as they are only allowed to send info to intermediaries.

My investment is done with a quite low risk profile eg 99% chances of
going well.
I though this is how it could be because all these emerging markets
(eastern Europe, India etc) supposed to go well.

So do you suggest not to go ahead?

Cheers

Markus




Flasherly wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
> > Thanks, Flash, for filling in more info. Not quite as dodgy as I sugges=
ted
> > it might be, but anyone who reads the website is unlikely to want to go
> > further. Unregulated is the key word. Personally I would not touch anyt=
hing
> > like this as a home for my hard-earned cash. With nearly 7,000 Unit Tru=
sts
> > available in conventional fund companies regulated by the FSA, why risk
> > getting involved with something like this?
>
> Money's the fore and risk the surname in the investment game. Like
> life, one must assume risks in order to live. Home, to me, I suppose
> has been often enough vagabond affairs afar enough to sense a
> comparitive wealth. There are 7K funds are available to UK investors.
> When looking for that figure awhile ago, I didn't arrive at it because
> what I really wanted involved an associated issue. I was after
> disparity. A figure not so far from extensible family, apparently,
> though then I was wondering how your fellow countrymen see it by
> sufficiency in reckoning venture capital for a fair sense of trade I'm
> granted by the SEC. Working within a US survey over equity, hybrid,
> bond and money markets, I encompass a brunt of =A32T assets over 8K
> hearth funds; there's 2K of CEFs, with an oddly contrasting number of
> 300 ETFs, in addition to 1K of short-term funds for the equity minded.
> Roughshod off a list of 2004 ICI tables. UITs appear to be another
> breed of cat when a trust intermediary is involved. Like CEFs, an
> initial UIT public block offering is engaged, within a ownership pact
> of secondary market intermediaries, with or without rights accorded to
> sell back unit issues to the issuing sponsorship. What Markus appears
> to be after is a tertiary wager granted by secondaries. UITs deal in
> less common insolvency issues extraneous involvement suggests, lacking
> a convention associated within a bias for readily ascertainable net
> asset values, hence the need for an intermediary's intercession.
>=20
> 'Ireland only keeps my dry.' Bono's father. -U2

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

wrote:
> OK thanks guys, you have put me in worry and I am starting thinking of
> keeping my money.

Really? I lost 10% both in Japan and Russia the first time I invested
in long-term mutual funds specific to the region, one of which, as a
consequence of having sold in a lost position, has barred me from all
further trading within all of their fund group. A rather large US
financial institution, I might add. The other fund did not, and I've
since recouped losses twice over since through the latter and other
like foreign instruments.

> The fact is that the company has only formed 5 years ago so I am not
> sure how long they will live.

A long time, perhaps. Capitalism may survive at least another 100
years.

> I though this is how it could be because all these emerging markets
> (eastern Europe, India etc) supposed to go well.
> So do you suggest not to go ahead?

Rule of thumb for high risk venture is to accumulate profits through
sound investments first, your other holdings return. Use a small
percentage of 'hard-earned' profits to gain experience and appreciation
for investment positions that react hard and quick to an unfavorable
turn of events. My first investment, an ultra-conservative position,
was advised through a retirement periodical from the AARP (American
Association of Retired People). Dissatisfied, I did my reasearch while
checking out at grocery store magazine financial fund selections, in
the likes of Forbes and Money. Better, yet it still wasn't enough, and
that may have been when I ended up here and elsewhere on the internet
looking for financial information. It's the same as before finances,
when I was learning and building computers - it's obviously not going
to be all bad advice. I've acquired a taste for running with a riskier
wager, is all, and the best I can advise is not to assume a high-risk
high-return position either lasts or will ensure you wealth.

-A man of richness is whose pleasures are cheapest.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

<> wrote in message
news:
OK thanks guys, you have put me in worry and I am starting thinking of
keeping my money.
The fact is that the company has only formed 5 years ago so I am not
sure how long they will live.
The other thing is that they keep sending me informative emails about
the performance of their funds where they told me this is done by
mistake as they are only allowed to send info to intermediaries.

My investment is done with a quite low risk profile eg 99% chances of
going well.
I though this is how it could be because all these emerging markets
(eastern Europe, India etc) supposed to go well.

So do you suggest not to go ahead?

Cheers

Markus


Markus. Although the Charlemagne Capital funds are not quoted by my UK data
provider ShareScope, in its 6,821 funds, I have now looked further and they
are quoted as Magna funds by Morningstar on www.morningstar.co.uk This
means my previous doubts about their legitimacy have been answered and they
are worth considering relative to other funds. I can't see anything about
FSA regulation but you should look at a prospectus for that on the basis
that FSA regulation is a good thing and means your money is safer than
without it.

The Magna funds cover Eastern Europe, Global emerging markets, China, India,
Latin America, Russia and Turkey. There are several different versions of
some of them with initial purchases of 5,000 Euro, 100,000 Euro and
1,000,000 Euro. With up to a million Euros initial investment these seem to
be for seriously rich investors and you are unlikely to get them from a fund
supermarket with reduced fees. This means you have to pay the 5% up-front
fee and the 1.75% annual management fee. This would indicate you are already
6.75% down for the first year when you put your minimum 5,000 Euro
investment in. However, their returns are very high to say the least. Magna
Latin America fund A has made 19.5% in the two months of the YTD and 69.6%
in the last year. Magna Turkey Fund A has made 93% in the last year.
However, Morningstar does not give most of them a rating, just Magna Eastern
European Fund C (Initial investment 100,000 Euro) which gets 4 stars and has
made a mere 55% in the last year. I think this may be because that is the
only Magna fund that has been going for 3 years. Their worst performer is
Magna greater China fund at 22% for the last year and 6.5% YTD.

These seem to be fantastic returns and the fees do not really matter if you
can get from 22% to 93% return in a year. Whether these levels of return
will continue is something you have to decide for yourself.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

Many thanks. I will probably try to talk to financial advisor about the
risks and guarantees of my money eg if the company goes busted.

Thanks for your time.

Markus



David Wilkinson wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news:
> OK thanks guys, you have put me in worry and I am starting thinking of
> keeping my money.
> The fact is that the company has only formed 5 years ago so I am not
> sure how long they will live.
> The other thing is that they keep sending me informative emails about
> the performance of their funds where they told me this is done by
> mistake as they are only allowed to send info to intermediaries.
>
> My investment is done with a quite low risk profile eg 99% chances of
> going well.
> I though this is how it could be because all these emerging markets
> (eastern Europe, India etc) supposed to go well.
>
> So do you suggest not to go ahead?
>
> Cheers
>
> Markus
>
>
> Markus. Although the Charlemagne Capital funds are not quoted by my UK data
> provider ShareScope, in its 6,821 funds, I have now looked further and they
> are quoted as Magna funds by Morningstar on www.morningstar.co.uk This
> means my previous doubts about their legitimacy have been answered and they
> are worth considering relative to other funds. I can't see anything about
> FSA regulation but you should look at a prospectus for that on the basis
> that FSA regulation is a good thing and means your money is safer than
> without it.
>
> The Magna funds cover Eastern Europe, Global emerging markets, China, India,
> Latin America, Russia and Turkey. There are several different versions of
> some of them with initial purchases of 5,000 Euro, 100,000 Euro and
> 1,000,000 Euro. With up to a million Euros initial investment these seem to
> be for seriously rich investors and you are unlikely to get them from a fund
> supermarket with reduced fees. This means you have to pay the 5% up-front
> fee and the 1.75% annual management fee. This would indicate you are already
> 6.75% down for the first year when you put your minimum 5,000 Euro
> investment in. However, their returns are very high to say the least. Magna
> Latin America fund A has made 19.5% in the two months of the YTD and 69.6%
> in the last year. Magna Turkey Fund A has made 93% in the last year.
> However, Morningstar does not give most of them a rating, just Magna Eastern
> European Fund C (Initial investment 100,000 Euro) which gets 4 stars and has
> made a mere 55% in the last year. I think this may be because that is the
> only Magna fund that has been going for 3 years. Their worst performer is
> Magna greater China fund at 22% for the last year and 6.5% YTD.
>
> These seem to be fantastic returns and the fees do not really matter if you
> can get from 22% to 93% return in a year. Whether these levels of return
> will continue is something you have to decide for yourself.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

I indeed have experienced a great loss situation of about =A325000 been
lost during the 2001 years. The main reason I have lost this amount is
because I have listened to a consultant of my stockbroker company who
told me to keep my money on the stocks.
I think I was one of the victims of a campaign aiming to keep the
market (my local one) high.

I know that someone has to spend a lot of time to be successful on
these things, and I am very short of time for this as I am actually
looking for job.

I know more about stocks and not have experience in investing in funds.
I thought that funds are more secure than stocks. Simply because there
is an experienced person taking care of it, but to be honest I have not
though of a possibility of deliberate fraud on others people money.

Let me ask you some simple questions, if you wanted to have profits,
would you put your money into this Magna fund?
If you did not have time to spend on this matter what type of fund or
investment in general would you suggest?

Cheers

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

<> wrote in message
news:
I indeed have experienced a great loss situation of about £25000 been
lost during the 2001 years. The main reason I have lost this amount is
because I have listened to a consultant of my stockbroker company who
told me to keep my money on the stocks.
I think I was one of the victims of a campaign aiming to keep the
market (my local one) high.

I know that someone has to spend a lot of time to be successful on
these things, and I am very short of time for this as I am actually
looking for job.

I know more about stocks and not have experience in investing in funds.
I thought that funds are more secure than stocks. Simply because there
is an experienced person taking care of it, but to be honest I have not
though of a possibility of deliberate fraud on others people money.

Let me ask you some simple questions, if you wanted to have profits,
would you put your money into this Magna fund?
If you did not have time to spend on this matter what type of fund or
investment in general would you suggest?

Cheers

On Buy & Hold, we have seen the FTSE100 go from almost 7,000 in 2000 down to
3,200 in 2003, down 54%, and then up to about 5,800 now, up 81% on the
minimum but still 17% down after 6 years from its maximum in 2000. If you
bought and held through this then you must either not have been bothering to
look or you had nerves of steel. Either way you could have made about 4%
p.a. in a bank savings account or 27% in 6 years instead of losing 17%, so
you would be 44% down on a risk-free investment. This is the case against
B&H, that while it is good in a bull market it is hopeless in a bear market.

If you chose to follow your financial advisor's advice you have to ask
whether he is working for you or for himself. Look at the outcome. You lost
£25,000 from following his B&H advice while he lost nothing. If he is so
expert then why did he not tell you to sell and miss the falling market? As
in all fields it is caveat emptor. The only person with your interests
really at heart is yourself.

As shown above, the stock market is a dangerous place and even index funds
can lose 54% in two or three years. If you do not have time to watch your
investments carefully then you probably should not be in the market but in a
savings account. However, a more attention-free way of investing is to use
one of the asset allocation systems to spread your investments between
equities, bonds, REITS and cash. REITS are not currently available in the UK
but there are plans to introduce them. A frequently published allocation is
to put 100-your age% into equities and the rest into bonds. So, if you are
40, say you put 60% into stocks or stock funds and 40% into bonds or bond
funds. This allocation did much better over 2000-06 than a FTSE100 index
fund alone. A simple way of getting this sort of allocation without effort
or fees is to buy something like Fidelity Moneybuilder balanced fund, which
is about 70% in equities and 30% in bonds.

Would I buy one of the Magna funds? No, but then my risk tolerance may be
lower than yours. Most of them have only a year or two of records so there
is almost no data on the standard deviation of returns but I would mentally
put them as high risk. It must be fairly obvious that while 50 to 90% return
in a year is splendid with hindsight, it cannot continue. I don't know how
the fund managers did it and know almost nothing about stock markets or
companies in Turkey, Russia, Latin America etc. so I have no certainty they
can do it again Warren Buffett is the most successful investor in the world
and not far off the richest man in the World and he makes something like 25%
a year. Is it plausible that Magna funds has managed to find half a dozen
managers who are all better than Buffett, like 2 to 4 times as good? Not
very likely is it. If the Magna fund managers have done well this last year
then it is more likely there is a large element of luck in it their
long-term average will be something below Buffett's so a year or so of
returns well below 25% to redress the balance is likely. Just an opinion of
course as I do not know the future any more than anyone else.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

wrote:
> I indeed have experienced a great loss situation of about =A325000 been
> lost during the 2001 years. The main reason I have lost this amount is
> because I have listened to a consultant of my stockbroker company who
> told me to keep my money on the stocks.
> I think I was one of the victims of a campaign aiming to keep the
> market (my local one) high.
>
> I know that someone has to spend a lot of time to be successful on
> these things, and I am very short of time for this as I am actually
> looking for job.
>
> I know more about stocks and not have experience in investing in funds.
> I thought that funds are more secure than stocks. Simply because there
> is an experienced person taking care of it, but to be honest I have not
> though of a possibility of deliberate fraud on others people money.
>
> Let me ask you some simple questions, if you wanted to have profits,
> would you put your money into this Magna fund?
> If you did not have time to spend on this matter what type of fund or
> investment in general would you suggest?

I went through the same thing at the same time for the same reason.
=A312000. Funds are stocks, only single stock swing fluctuations are
mathematically leveled over groups of stocks by the sum of their
average. Practically, it's a far cry before you'll run into fraudulent
securities abuses. Funds I was in at the time of the abovementioned
losses were prosecuted and fined for illegal trading practises, as were
others. A different timeframe and mindset - I was a loyal
buy-n'-holder within funds from a single institution's offerings.
Apart from the dynamics of terrorism on the market, losses involving
trading issue violations seem less significant these days. Percentages
of a percent. Yes, I'm in Russia, Turkey, and China. I've done well
in a relatively short time by building on exposure through incremental
deposits. That's the strategy I try and follow - reward returns with
equivalent purchases - which doesn't especially mean much when things
start to fall apart. I don't have the experience for a British market
to make specific suggestions. As for a Russian fund, yes, I would
consider it. I'd first want to know its performance, overall assets, a
financial presence, recognition and legitimacy;--second, I want
liquidity. I'd sooner not be somewhere obligated to a contract, when I
can be elsewhere without stepping on toes over short-trade restrictions
I've violated in past fund dealings. Fast profits in general. . . .
Pull several websites for short-period fund rankings chart; back them
out at six months and compare prospects. Start with foreign objectives
and broaden over into high-returns. Look for parity between
discrepancies in trends through following business newscasts. Again,
bore for liquidity unless you've time better to consider a
risk/diversity ratio. Last, chin up.

Re: Investing in a Fund through intermediatery

Dear David & Flasherly,


Thank you very much for your time you have spend writing me your
opinions.
It was good to read it. Hope you also have good returns in your money
nests.
Hope there is no other terrorist attack when I invest...


Cheers


Markus