I want to start investing a regular monthly amount to a fund, and by choosing a highstreet bank fund I'm wondering if I'm not making a mistake.

Basically, the fund they are trying to sell has, in total, an AMC of 1.43% (fund charges, plus bank charges), PLUS an advice fee of 3.5% of my invested money over 4 years (so over the course of 10 years, I'll have paid 1.78% per year... which seems to me like daylight robbery).

So my question is: is it really worth it? Considering that apparently in most cases actively managed funds are underperforming compared to simple ETFs, I wonder if I should not buy some ETFs with a similar asset allocation to my high street bank fund, and save a lot in AMCs.

The other option (I live in the UK) would be to go with Nutmeg, but their AMC is also around 1.2/1.3%, which is a bit less but still quite a lot.

A bit of context: I'm an IT consultant, but I work in finance so I know a bit about it; without being an expert.

It then boils down to: is an "expert" manager at Nationwide (my high street bank...) will do better than me taking some ETFs, knowing I'll save 1.5% in fees.
And if you advise going by myself, what company should I use? Hargreaves Lansdown or something else?

Thanks!

[edit] : After the few discussions below, I thought I might add some actual fees over a certain amount and a certain period to make the comparison easier:

So for say £ 50,000, over 10 years, I would pay:

* *Nationwide*: **1.78%** (1.43% platform + fund + 3.5% spread across 10 years)
* *Nutmeg*: **0.94%** (0.75% platform + 0.19% fund)
* *HL*: **0.55%** (0.45% platform + 0.10% fund)

That means that for Nationwide to be competitive, their fund would need to outperform my HL tracker funds by 1.23% per year on average, and Nutmeg's by 0.84% per year. Is that realistic?