Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • edinburgher
    • By edinburgher 16th May 17, 8:21 AM
    • 10,650Posts
    • 55,309Thanks
    edinburgher
    Vanguard direct to customer offering confirmed
    • #1
    • 16th May 17, 8:21 AM
    Vanguard direct to customer offering confirmed 16th May 17 at 8:21 AM
    Looks like Vanguard are taking the wraps off their new direct to customer offering - wonderful

    https://www.ft.com/content/6821ce50-3976-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23

    I know that this has been on the cards for some time, but it's nice to see some specifics confirmed (0.15% admin costs for £500+)

    Another article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/16/vanguard-funds-investment-isa-uk-fees-hargreaves-lansdown-fidelity
    Last edited by edinburgher; 16-05-2017 at 8:24 AM.
Page 5
    • Redski69
    • By Redski69 17th May 17, 11:05 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Redski69
    Yes, I understand that. It was the use of the term 're-register' which threw me as opposed to transferring out; perhaps the re-registration term is the more business appropriate but not one I (as a layperson) was familiar with.

    So, your assertion that you should not sell and just re-register cannot be held as absolutely appropriate, i.e. the full costs of transfers and the risk of being out of the market needs to be considered; also, the probability that a transfer involving lines of stocks "generally" appear to take longer than an account transfer of just cash (historically has tended to be the case). Although the timewilltell recent experience has cast a significant doubt over my above comment about transfer times.

    Perhaps the investment industry have implemented 'Faster Transfers' just like the banking industry implemented 'Faster Payments'...
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    Apologies Cloud_Dog and makes sense, thanks for calling it out ... the term was used on me when going through the process myself and has since just stuck I guess !

    In my experience, the cost of transferring the stock was nil because the new provider covered the Exit Fee costs with HL for me - so made sense to stay in the market rather than taking cash out ... and the timing factor against the backdrop of the longer term goal of better ROI wasn't greater to make me want to expedite it by using the cash route.

    The timing difference between Cashing Out & Transferring Stock these days isn't vastly different either I believe.

    Just didn't make sense to me ... and if its outside an ISA there are Capital Gains implications too.
    • hennerz
    • By hennerz 17th May 17, 11:05 AM
    • 171 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    hennerz
    I seem to manage it regularly. As do many other investors in the UK.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Many others? There are billions in AUM with underperforming fund managers!

    over 10 years
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    I just posted sourced data over the last 15 years! Then you reply with no sources and cherry picked data over a 10 year period.

    Your data "looked at “growth” funds, those that aim simply to increase in value over time, and did not include income funds".

    It also does not take into account survivorship bias.

    It compared vs the "best performing" 10 year old tracker for each segment over the period, we are not told which trackers and the article itself goes on to say:

    Is our data reliable?
    Yes, but as Prof Blake said, the bull market since 2009 may have helped active funds.
    ...At the start of that period tracker funds were much more expensive than they are today. This will have put their average cost over the period up and reduced their returns after fees were taken into account.
    “It will be a different story over the next 10 years. Active funds now have a much bigger hurdle to beat, given that today the cheapest trackers cost as little as 0.09pc and active funds tend to charge 1pc.

    You should be looking at the SPIVA scorecard for evidence.


    https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-europe-scorecard-year-end-2016.pdf?force_download=true

    The article you quote is from 5th April 2015. Here is what one evidenceinvestor.co.uk had to say about the 2016 year results...

    Nearly nine out of ten UK active equity funds underperformed their benchmark over one year. The exact number is 87.22%, which represents a four-fold increase on 2015.

    UK active funds have also fared poorly over longer periods, with 61.64% of funds underperforming over three years, 50.0% over five years and 74.19% over ten.

    Average UK active equity fund performance also lagged the benchmark over the calendar year, with active funds delivering an average annual return of 11.15%, which is 5.95% less than the S&P United Kingdom BMI over the same period.

    Think about that for a moment. The average active fund underperformed the index by almost 6%. Clearly the S&P United Kingdom BMI isn’t an investable index; there is a cost to investing in passively managed funds, but that cost is very small compared to what an active investor pays in fund management charges and transaction costs. In effect, that means active investors need their chosen fund managers to outperform the index this year by almost as much they lagged the index last year just to keep up with a typical passive investor.

    For the industry, these figures clearly aren’t good. 2016, we were told, provided near-perfect conditions for active managers to outperform, and yet they failed miserably.

    No, the performance of UK fund managers is not significantly worse than managers elsewhere. For example, 88.25% of euro-denominated actively managed European equity funds have underperformed the benchmark over ten years. But it’s clearly wrong for anyone, including my fund retailer friend, to suggest that UK managers are somehow immune to what is very much a global problem of active underperformance.
    http://www.evidenceinvestor.co.uk/2016-uk-fund-managers-annus-horribilis/

    If you are going to read one link from my post, make it the last one. The evidence is clear. 5 likes to your poor response is laughable also, literally shows why the hedge funds are still lapping up people's hard earned money only to underperform the markets.
    • MonroeM
    • By MonroeM 17th May 17, 11:22 AM
    • 99 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    MonroeM
    How do we know which actively managed funds are best, as I thought we can't really use past performance as a guide? Seems even more difficult to know what selection of active funds to pick for a portfolio to beat a good multi-asset passive fund. For instance, can you list a portfolio of actively managed funds (or a mixture of active and passive) for a £100k investment with an overall 40/60 equity/bond allocation, that can better a VLS40 over the long term. I'm not saying there isn't one, but if it's that easy to identify such funds I'd be interested in knowing what would be the best active and passive funds to include in such a portfolio.
    Originally posted by Audaxer
    IMO you have to do your own research. A good point about past performance, as a guide, because VLS funds have only been around the a limited period in investments terms of about 5 years whereas for example you can track most active funds back over a 10 year period. Also, we don't know if VLS will outperform its competitors like L&G Multi Index or HSBC Global Strategy funds over a longer period - only time will tell?

    I personally hold quite a few active funds in different geographical regions and am more than happy with the performance even after fees, however, I also hold some passive funds (and not all of these are Vanguard) therefore the new Vanguard platform is not really suitable for me with a portfolio of different funds from a diverse range of sectors and geographical regions.

    The new Vanguard platform is absolutely great for Vanguard products/fans but less interesting for people who like to hold a diverse range of funds from many investment companies. Although, I do totally agree that reducing the platform charges for a percentage fee based platform can only be good for the industry as a whole so come on Fidelity please 'reduce your platform fee'!
    • BananaRepublic
    • By BananaRepublic 17th May 17, 11:31 AM
    • 819 Posts
    • 574 Thanks
    BananaRepublic
    I seem to manage it regularly. As do many other investors in the UK. Mainly as they are not blinkered to the passive bias that some people like you have. Where passive is best, it should be used. Where managed is best, it should be used.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    I also manage it regularly. In one case the outperformance is dramatic. Without doubt most active funds underperform the target index/sector.
    Last edited by BananaRepublic; 17-05-2017 at 11:35 AM.
    • MarcoM
    • By MarcoM 17th May 17, 11:52 AM
    • 430 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    MarcoM
    has anyone started their transfer from HL yet?
    I am wondering what approach HL will take on this. Do you guys think they will reduce their fees within a matter of weeks or not?


    I would like to move to vanguard but I am concerned about the possible level of customer service I may encounter.


    Like other posters on here, a few months ago I emailed them to
    ask if they offered ISAs and it took them 4 weeks to reply to my mail...
    • moneyfoolish
    • By moneyfoolish 17th May 17, 12:01 PM
    • 439 Posts
    • 258 Thanks
    moneyfoolish
    I know other platforms can be cheaper but are any cheaper if you are putting in monthly amounts or lump sums at various unknown times in a year?
    • BananaRepublic
    • By BananaRepublic 17th May 17, 12:23 PM
    • 819 Posts
    • 574 Thanks
    BananaRepublic
    Many others? There are billions in AUM with underperforming fund managers!



    I just posted sourced data over the last 15 years! Then you reply with no sources and cherry picked data over a 10 year period.

    Your data "looked at “growth” funds, those that aim simply to increase in value over time, and did not include income funds".

    It also does not take into account survivorship bias.

    It compared vs the "best performing" 10 year old tracker for each segment over the period, we are not told which trackers and the article itself goes on to say:




    You should be looking at the SPIVA scorecard for evidence.


    https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-europe-scorecard-year-end-2016.pdf?force_download=true

    The article you quote is from 5th April 2015. Here is what one evidenceinvestor.co.uk had to say about the 2016 year results...


    http://www.evidenceinvestor.co.uk/2016-uk-fund-managers-annus-horribilis/

    If you are going to read one link from my post, make it the last one. The evidence is clear. 5 likes to your poor response is laughable also, literally shows why the hedge funds are still lapping up people's hard earned money only to underperform the markets.
    Originally posted by hennerz
    Just goes to show that you have to choose very carefully. Clearly most people don't.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 17th May 17, 1:17 PM
    • 494 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    bostonerimus
    IMO you have to do your own research. A good point about past performance, as a guide, because VLS funds have only been around the a limited period in investments terms of about 5 years whereas for example you can track most active funds back over a 10 year period. Also, we don't know if VLS will outperform its competitors like L&G Multi Index or HSBC Global Strategy funds over a longer period - only time will tell?
    Originally posted by MonroeM
    The bold is mine......I wish we could get away from terms like "out perform". Chasing return is usually a path to failure or at best frustration. Once the investor realizes that the vast majority of market pundits and active managers deal in numerology they will live a far happier investing life. The best of the bad alternatives to predicting the future is to buy the markets and put your fate in the hands of the averages and the standard deviations.

    The performance of two index trackers should be the same as should be the performance of two multi-asset trackers with a similar asset mix....so choose your asset allocation, keep fees low and the funds diverse and stop worrying about performance.
    • Redski69
    • By Redski69 17th May 17, 2:10 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Redski69
    has anyone started their transfer from HL yet?
    I am wondering what approach HL will take on this. Do you guys think they will reduce their fees within a matter of weeks or not?


    I would like to move to vanguard but I am concerned about the possible level of customer service I may encounter.


    Like other posters on here, a few months ago I emailed them to
    ask if they offered ISAs and it took them 4 weeks to reply to my mail...
    Originally posted by MarcoM

    If HL reduce their fees I'll eat my keyboard.
    • StellaN
    • By StellaN 17th May 17, 2:27 PM
    • 139 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    StellaN
    Does anybody know if there has been any reaction/comments to the new Vanguard platform from any of the other platforms? Or do they think its best to ignore it and things will settle down?
    • koru
    • By koru 17th May 17, 2:30 PM
    • 1,237 Posts
    • 623 Thanks
    koru
    If HL reduce their fees I'll eat my keyboard.
    Originally posted by Redski69

    Yes, I'd be surprised if Vanguard could make a big enough dent in their customer base. Most customers must still be largely invested in active funds, even though HL have stopped preaching that passives are the devil's work (coincidentally just at the time when trail commission was banned).
    koru
    • koru
    • By koru 17th May 17, 2:33 PM
    • 1,237 Posts
    • 623 Thanks
    koru
    Does anybody know if there has been any reaction/comments to the new Vanguard platform from any of the other platforms? Or do they think its best to ignore it and things will settle down?
    Originally posted by StellaN
    Nearest I've seen is the reaction from the Lang Cat, which is as entertaining as they always are:
    http://www.langcatfinancial.co.uk/blog/thats-not-a-moon-thats-a-space-station-vanguard-launches-the-rebellion-weeps/
    Last edited by koru; 17-05-2017 at 2:35 PM.
    koru
    • ColdIron
    • By ColdIron 17th May 17, 3:30 PM
    • 3,182 Posts
    • 3,619 Thanks
    ColdIron
    Like other posters on here, a few months ago I emailed them to
    ask if they offered ISAs and it took them 4 weeks to reply to my mail...
    Originally posted by MarcoM
    Why would you ask them by email if they offered ISAs? It says so prominently on most of the website
    • Hal17
    • By Hal17 17th May 17, 4:46 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Hal17
    I recently opened a S&S account with Charles Stanley but have not yet transferred any funds into the S&S account.

    So, could I open a S&S account with Vanguard instead. I know you are only allowed one S&S account in a single tax year, but am guessing it only kicks in once I transfer funds. Appreciate any feedback.
    • Sue58
    • By Sue58 17th May 17, 5:08 PM
    • 59 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Sue58
    The new Vanguard platform is absolutely great news for customers who only hold Vanguard funds.

    I hold some passive funds in different single sector regions including the HSBC American Index Fund (0.07%) but only 1 Vanguard fund so its not really worth changing platforms.
    • Linton
    • By Linton 17th May 17, 5:09 PM
    • 7,952 Posts
    • 7,754 Thanks
    Linton
    I recently opened a S&S account with Charles Stanley but have not yet transferred any funds into the S&S account.

    So, could I open a S&S account with Vanguard instead. I know you are only allowed one S&S account in a single tax year, but am guessing it only kicks in once I transfer funds. Appreciate any feedback.
    Originally posted by Hal17
    Yes - the rules only apply to contrbutions.
    • Hal17
    • By Hal17 17th May 17, 5:11 PM
    • 89 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Hal17
    Yes - the rules only apply to contrbutions.
    Originally posted by Linton
    Thanks Linton - I really appreciate that.
    • talexuser
    • By talexuser 17th May 17, 7:32 PM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 1,664 Thanks
    talexuser
    Good news for people in more expensive platforms but if you have a largish amount in Vanguard funds with eg iWeb or Halifax it would still be MORE expensive to have them with Vanguard and their % based structure.
    • badger09
    • By badger09 17th May 17, 7:51 PM
    • 5,066 Posts
    • 4,263 Thanks
    badger09
    Good news for people in more expensive platforms but if you have a largish amount in Vanguard funds with eg iWeb or Halifax it would still be MORE expensive to have them with Vanguard and their % based structure.
    Originally posted by talexuser
    Agreed. My ISA is with IWEB, and cheaper to keep with them than move to Vanguard.

    I also have a (much smaller) SIPP, currently with HL. I will be interested to see what Vanguard's direct SIPP offering looks like. If all else is equal, then 0.15% could be attractive.
    • bowlesbargain
    • By bowlesbargain 17th May 17, 8:18 PM
    • 174 Posts
    • 87 Thanks
    bowlesbargain
    I want to move my ISA, I want to get a decent divided how do I check the Vanguard units to see which pay the higher divided. I can see how you pick a trust ie 60/40, 20/80 etc but I cannot find anywhere to say what the divided rate is I am looking for between 4 and 5%
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,175Posts Today

5,335Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin