logo
How many funds should you hold in your pension or Isa? ANDREW OXLADE

How many funds should you hold in your pension or Isa? ANDREW OXLADE

Daily Mail​24-06-2025
What is the right number of funds to hold in your pension or stocks and shares Isa? It's a question many DIY investors ask ourselves, especially after a buying spree.
It is, after all, easy to get carried away, enticed by a racy growth story or an investment that has foundered and may bounce back.
Picking investments is a fascinating hobby, fellow hobbyists would probably agree. It is the art of understanding the world better than the next investor - the trends, the risks, the growth opportunities - and then making better returns as a result.
But dangers lurk. We all have biases in our decision making that can lead to questionable investment choices. And those decisions can build up into an accumulation of decisions that manifest themselves in holding lots and lots of funds.
So, what is the right amount to hold?
For my part, I have five funds per £100,000 of money in my pension.
But perhaps it's more beneficial to use a bigger pool of data. Fidelity has more than 550,000 DIY investors in the UK, offering a huge pool, and its average numbers for various tiers of wealth offer a benchmark.
How many is too many?
Those with portfolios of between £100,000 and £200,000 have an average of eight fund holdings, as the chart above shows.
Those with larger portfolios seem to resist the opportunity to keep buying more, with the number plateauing at 17 from £500,000 portfolio sizes.
Is that too many funds or too few? It's difficult to give a firm answer.
So much depends on what you want to achieve and the risks you are willing to stomach.
These factors will dictate the investment mix included in a portfolio.
For example, someone investing for at least 10 years and comfortable with volatility might want to go 100 per cent into stock market funds; someone retiring in five years and planning to withdraw money may want a portion of the portfolio in bonds, which tend to move counter to stock markets, although not always.
Investors may also want other diversifying assets such as real estate or commodities. A financial adviser can help work out what you need.
Even within stock markets, investors may want a bent towards a particular region or country.
So rather than following the typical allocation that a global tracker fund would give (67 per cent US, 13 per cent European and 4 per cent UK for the Legal & General Global Equity Index, for example) they may want more, or less, in each. An investor may want more technology exposure, or to back renewable energy.
This can be achieved by buying regional funds and specialist funds - and this is when excessive fund buying can happen.
Here, I've set out four questions to ask yourself.
1: How many investments can you safely monitor?
Selecting your own shares requires some homework.
With funds, a manager does that for you. But the fund investor must also keep an eye on each fund, especially for the exit of a star manager.
And managers can also have fallow spells.
It then requires a call on whether to hold until their mojo returns, or to sell. Either way, holding actively managed funds requires more monitoring.
Do you have the time to do that with 20 active funds?
Of course, funds that aim to track an index - so-called passive funds - require less attention.
Many of the investment platforms offer deeply researched lists on funds, which can be helpful. For ours - the Select 50 - the research and selections are undertaken by Fundhouse, an independent funds rating agency.
2: Do you have hidden overlaps?
Commonly, an investor may have a core holding of a global stock market tracker fund, with other funds that add a flavour of particular countries or regions they want to back.
And within that part of the portfolio, it's just possible that the engaged investor has had their head turned by funds of a similar ilk - perhaps two high income funds that might both hold British American Tobacco. This may not be a problem but it is good to know where you do hold overlaps.
Some investment platforms have 'X-ray' tools that enable you to see these overlaps. They can show you the percentage of your portfolio you have in each company.
I was alarmed earlier this year by my exposure to Nvidia across many funds. This included index tracking funds in the core and active funds on the periphery.
3: Is it more expensive to be a multiple fund holder?
DIY investors face two primary costs - the charges on the fund and the charges applied by the fund platform for holding it for you.
An actively managed fund will commonly cost around 0.75% or £75 a year per £1,000 of investment; passive funds cost a lot less.
Platform percentages vary considerably and so do pricing structures. This is important to the thinking on the number of funds to hold. Some platforms charge a dealing fee to buy and sell funds, normally as a pay-off for lower ongoing costs. However, this can rack up if you hold a lot of funds and like to tinker.
And with investment trusts, the cousins of funds that trade as listed companies, there is nearly always a fee for buying and selling.
It is worth applying this lens to your thinking. Small allocations to many funds may not significantly influence overall portfolio performance and may add unnecessary costs.
4: Would you be better with a 'simple life' option?
It kind of defeats the point of being a DIY investor, but you could stick with a single fund that is a ready-made portfolio. DIY-ing isn't for everyone, after all.
Such funds can offer some diversification, which is key, by holding a mix of assets. If one flags, another may pick up the baton: when share prices fall, bond prices should rise, or that's the theory. A popular allocation is to divide 60% in shares and 40% in bonds, or 80/20 for those willing to take more risk.
You can do this cheaply and easily with a single fund. The Vanguard LifeStrategy fund range is an example, with 80/20 and 60/40 funds among others. The simplicity of such funds, which track markets rather than actively selecting investments, has made them popular in recent years. There are also lots of actively managed funds that aim to do this and beat the index.
Will I reduce my fund holdings?
In short, yes. Or at the very least I'll be mindful of the very questions I've raised and that will help limit expansion from where I'm at. But ultimately, managing a DIY portfolio is an enjoyable hobby – and that enjoyment is something I wouldn't want to diminish.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I'm an EV expert and I think Labour's new Electric Car Grant is an expensive mess: GINNY BUCKLEY blasts £650m-backed scheme
I'm an EV expert and I think Labour's new Electric Car Grant is an expensive mess: GINNY BUCKLEY blasts £650m-backed scheme

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

I'm an EV expert and I think Labour's new Electric Car Grant is an expensive mess: GINNY BUCKLEY blasts £650m-backed scheme

As chief executive of dedicated electric car website and a long-time advocate of electric vehicles, you'd be forgiven for thinking I've been celebrating this week's news that Labour is bringing back grants for EVs. The government press release that landed in my inbox on Monday proudly trumpeted discounts of up to £3,750 on electric cars - saying it was set to slash costs for thousands of UK drivers with an impressive £650million fund. It boasted that the scheme would be up and running within days, with manufacturers handling the paperwork. Taking the news at face value, I initially welcomed such a bold move. But having delved into the detail, this is nothing short of an ill-conceived policy that raises more questions than answers. Instead of encouraging electric car uptake, it will instead restrict consumer choice. Labour really needs to go back to the drawing board on this one... Despite a new EV being registered every 60 seconds in June, private buyer sales have stalled. They now make up just under 20 per cent of registrations, with the bulk going to company car drivers who enjoy generous tax breaks if they go electric. In our November 2024 survey with the AA - responded to by over 11,000 UK drivers - 76 per cent told us that the upfront cost was the biggest barrier to switching. I believed fresh incentives would reignite momentum and give more drivers the confidence to switch. My calculations suggested almost half of all new electric models on sale would fall below the £37,000 price cap. Crucially, this support appeared to be aimed where it was needed most: from school-run staples to budget-friendly runarounds. How wrong I was. As they say, the devil is in the details - and as the week has unfolded, the details behind those upbeat headlines have painted a very different picture. Instead of a straightforward grant on all EVs under £37,000 - designed to help hard-working people make a sustainable choice - the rigid rules and baffling conditions surrounding which cars qualify (and by how much) have left even the carmakers scratching their heads. At the heart of this complexity is something called a Science Based Target (SBT), which requires manufacturers to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with limiting global warming to 1.5C or below 2C, as set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change. You'd assume the government would have a simple list of eligible manufacturers. Apparently not. Instead, car makers - with customers in dealerships already asking about discounts - are left wading through bureaucracy to figure it all out. Even if a company has signed up to an SBT - like Renault or Ford - the scheme may still reject cars assembled in countries with poor overall sustainability records or high emissions. And, surprise surprise, even that isn't as simple as it sounds. The emissions calculations are split between where the battery is made and where the car itself is built. This means a car assembled in the UK or Europe may score well for manufacturing and earn the minimum £1,500 grant, but fail to reach the additional 70 per cent score needed for the full £3,750 if its battery is sourced from a country with a lower environmental score. Transport Minister Lilian Greenwood told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday: 'We don't expect any cars that are assembled in China to be eligible for this scheme.' This rules out cars like the Volvo EX30, the Mini electric (which incidentally, is built in factories powered by renewable energy), the MG4 and the Dacia Spring - family favourites which it seems won't qualify for a penny. Making matters worse, many manufacturers striving to make EVs cheaper have switched to LFP batteries, which are predominantly made in China. So much for my celebrations that the grant was focused on more affordable models. The reality is that car making is a global business. Even if your car doesn't bear a Chinese badge, the chances are part of it was manufactured there. And it's not just Chinese-made cars at risk of ending up with nothing - brands from other nations like Korea which make some of the UK's most popular cars could also end up with many models being excluded. The government is effectively limiting consumer choice at the very moment they should be encouraging it. Far from being the shot in the arm that private buyers need, this ill-conceived grant scheme has only created questions and confusion. I'm now telling anyone in the market for a new EV to pause before making a decision - especially since, bizarrely, it appears that if the entry-level model of a car costs under £37,000, the more expensive versions and trims in the same range might still be eligible for discounts. This scheme encapsulates everything that's wrong with government policymaking: good intentions, badly thought through and buried under layers of bureaucracy. It simply seems half-baked, with an announcement which was made too early. If Labour truly wants to accelerate EV adoption, they need to go back to the drawing board and design something that actually works for the people it's supposed to help and gives everyone some clarity. My advice? Start with the used market.

Rental fraud: the Facebook and Gumtree scam targeting desperate tenants
Rental fraud: the Facebook and Gumtree scam targeting desperate tenants

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Rental fraud: the Facebook and Gumtree scam targeting desperate tenants

You're desperately hunting for somewhere to live and scouring rental sites. The odds are stacked against you. Rents are high everywhere – in London tenants are paying almost £1,000 for a shoe cupboard with a bed – and living rooms have gone from a regular commodity to a luxury. But matters are made worse by scammers. The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more. Young people now account for three-quarters of rental fraud, according to data from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). Last year alone almost £9m was lost across about 5,000 reported cases. Recently, the BBC reported how a family had lost £2,000 after responding to a scam advert on the listings website Gumtree – the criminals had even shown them round the property before taking the money. Most scams take place through websites where individuals can advertise directly, and at no cost, rather than the big property websites. And, as would-be tenants turn to social media to look for rooms, so do scammers posing as individual tenants or landlords to trap unsuspecting victims. Some, such as Spareroom, offer users advice on how to spot a scam. There are variations, but a common version involves someone posing as a landlord and posting on dedicated Facebook rental groups, or Gumtree, offering a cheap place to rent. Sometimes they can be studio flats, other times they'll advertise a room in a two-, three-, sometimes four-bed flat. Once you message them with interest, they will typically put you in touch with the current 'tenant' through a mobile number. The tenant will explain more details about the property, sometimes even accompanied by a video of a flat. However, when you ask to view the property they'll be strangely unavailable – suddenly a parent has died, they're abroad, or they're just very busy. They will ask you to pay the deposit and often put pressure on you to act quickly. Do not pay any deposit upfront without seeing a property, no matter how desperate you are to find a home. Make sure you go to see any property before you commit to renting. Gumtree advises: 'Always ask to see proof of ownership, or the landlord's right to let, and ensure a tenancy agreement is in place before paying deposits or holding fees.' Stand your ground; if something seems fishy, it probably is. On social media, or listing websites, check when the landlord's profile was created. How long have they been active? Do they seem to be advertising multiple properties with similar messages? What comes up when you search their name? If a landlord is claiming to be part of the NRLA, you can check whether their accreditation is legitimate here. Report fraudulent accounts to Facebook and Gumtree.

Cost of living: Council pauses bid for living wage recognition
Cost of living: Council pauses bid for living wage recognition

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

Cost of living: Council pauses bid for living wage recognition

An Oxfordshire council has "paused" its bid to be accredited as an employer that pays the real living councillors on Vale of White Horse District Council pushed for the move back in 2023, after it was revealed some council contractors were paying the lower minimum the Lib Dem-controlled authority said it had undertaken a "consideration of workload" following the government's announcement that local government would be said that it would be "for the new council to set its own direction on HR matters such as pay". The Living Wage Foundation puts the real living wage at £12.60 per hour outside London - above the National Minimum Wage of £ says that more than 16,000 employers have been given an accreditation for paying the higher Vale of White Horse District Council said getting that accreditation involved contacting all the authority's third-party suppliers and contractors to seek their commitment to pay the living said that was a "time-consuming and resource intensive process".Green councillor Katherine Foxhall said the decision to pause work towards accreditation was said: "We still really think that it's vital that as major employers within the county, that councils really lead by example."Particularly in the context of local government reform, what we're trying to get our leaders to do is to set the tone and the priorities of whichever authority that follows."It's really vital that we say these are the things that are important to us, these are our priorities."Paying people fairly is a crucial aspect of council services."Under plans for local government reorganisation, district councils in Oxfordshire will cease to exist in 2028, and the county's two tier system will be replaced with unitary authorities. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store