Friends Provident Stewardship fund crashes

EdInvestor

Isn't it odd that there are more than 4 times the number of complaints against solicitors than there are against independent advisors.Yet people are deeply suspicious of advisors, while quite happy to pay fees to solicitors.

How can this be?

Obviously if you ignore the fact that there are 7 times more complaints against all advisors than against all solicitors, then you will come up with the wrong answer to this conundrum.

jem16

EdInvestor wrote: »

Isn't it odd that there are more than 4 times the number of complaints against solicitors than there are against independent advisors.Yet people are deeply suspicious of advisors, while quite happy to pay fees to solicitors.

How can this be?

You don't have a choice but to use a solicitor when it comes to legal matters. There are not many people faced with a court hearing that would do so without a solicitor. It's nothing to do with whether you trust them or not - it's a case of needs must.

dunstonh

Isn't it odd that there are more than 4 times the number of complaints against solicitors than there are against independent advisors.Yet people are deeply suspicious of advisors, while quite happy to pay fees to solicitors.

How can this be?

Solicitors are solicitors. The "adviser" tag covers all sorts of individuals and is over used. Something that will change post RDR. However, at the moment, if say a mortgage adviser does something wrong then it reflects on investment advisers and vice versa. If a tied agent does something wrong it reflects on IFAs. If banks do something wrong it reflects on everyone.

However, many of these issues are historical. According to the FOS, over 80% of current advisers have never had a complaint. It takes a long time for reputations to be repaired but takes next to no time to damage them.

EdInvestor

jem16 wrote: »

You don't have a choice but to use a solicitor when it comes to legal matters. .

Not these days.Most people use a solicitor for conveyancing ( whence cometh the biggest chunk of complaints) and there are plenty of others providing that service now.

jem16

EdInvestor wrote: »

Not these days.Most people use a solicitor for conveyancing ( whence cometh the biggest chunk of complaints) and there are plenty of others providing that service now.

Not in Scotland there isn't. You have to have a solicitor to make an offer on a house.

As to the rest of the UK it's still usually a solicitor but I appreciate that it isn't always. May well lead to more complaints from people thinking they used a solicitor in much the same way as people using advisers.

However I did say "legal matters" with specific reference to court hearings not conveyancing.

simonleblank

ChrisBristol wrote: »

So I was a bit shocked to find that the value of my fund has dropped from £114,230 last August to just £88,717 now. This is a huge drop, and it's put this fund in the bottom 10% of all funds, given that most pension funds seem to have dropped less than 10% over the last year.

Is this simply atrocious management on the part of Friends Provident?
Chris.[/QUOT

I have to agree with the OP, this is serious mis management.

dunstonh

I have to agree with the OP, this is serious mis management.

How is it mis-management? It is invested in a fund where a 40% loss is quite possible in a 12 month period. It is a medium/high risk fund. It also has a remit to be selective in types of investment it can use and as such it has missed out on some of the main growth areas because it cannot invest in those. For where it can invest, it has done quite well. Its just areas where it couldnt invest have done better. It could also have been a lot worse had it been 100% invested into some other areas of similar risk.

All the reasons why its not mismanagement are commented on this thread. So, why do you think different?

cheerfulcat

dunstonh wrote: »

It also has a remit to be selective in types of investment it can use and as such it has missed out on some of the main growth areas because it cannot invest in those. For where it can invest, it has done quite well. Its just areas where it couldnt invest have done better.

Couldn't agree more. The manager has to avoid companies involved in or deriving a certain portion of their income from gambling, alcohol, animal testing, nuclear power, oil and gas production, polluting chemicals, most finance, tobacco, private healthcare, armaments...there's quite a long list ( available here ) and considering the constraints the fund has done pretty well. But investing one's entire pension in it seems extreme.

simonleblank

Hi Dunstonh,
In my humble opinion, it was bloody obvious that the equities were going to fall from the FTSE @ 6500, hence risk should have been reduced by the fund manager to look after customers interests. They should be dismissed in my opinion!

dunstonh

simonleblank wrote: »

Hi Dunstonh,
In my humble opinion, it was bloody obvious that the equities were going to fall from the FTSE @ 6500, hence risk should have been reduced by the fund manager to look after customers interests. They should be dismissed in my opinion!

That is not the remit of the fund manager. If the fund is effectively a UK equity fund investing in an ethical manner then it has to invest in UK equities. It cannot suddenly decide to go cash or something different as that would break the rules relating to that fund.

If you wanted a fund that is more flexible on how much it allocates within the sectors then you should choose one or employ a servicing adviser that provides that sort of advice or you do it yourself within your own sector allocation.