AXA Distribution bonds

£$&*"($£&(

whiteflag wrote: »

Penalties? The bond has been going since 1995. Can you just clairify what you mean dh?

There won't be any penalties. Usually there are in the first five years but that's it.

dunstonh

Penalties? The bond has been going since 1995. Can you just clairify what you mean dh?

There is none. I forgot we were not in the 90s anymore and for the moment of typing thought it was 3 years ago.

meggsy

dunstonh wrote: »

There is none. I forgot we were not in the 90s anymore and for the moment of typing thought it was 3 years ago.

Phew glad that one is cleared up, though I thought you might have meant that an MVA would be applied.

dunstonh

All that said, the risk of the fund isnt changing. So, whoever said that is not telling the truth.

I suspect (and whiteflag looks as if he does as well) that this has been said as a SPIN on more cautious distribution funds being introduced as an attempt to try and churn the investment into a new product sale.

whiteflag_3

dunstonh wrote: »

All that said, the risk of the fund isnt changing. So, whoever said that is not telling the truth.

I suspect (and whiteflag looks as if he does as well) that this has been said as a SPIN on more cautious distribution funds being introduced as an attempt to try and churn the investment into a new product sale.

Exactly!

ps dh welcome back to the 21st century!:beer:

baby_boomer

Corporate Bonds used to be low risk but losses of 40% are now common.

Commercial property used to be a couter-cyclical lowish risk investment. But no longer.

These changes may have affected your fund's value and risk liability.

Dunstonh has advocated both types of fund as lowish risk on these boards, so it's hardly fair to blame Axa's original assessment - although it is up to them to keep investors up to date.

whiteflag_3

baby_boomer wrote: »

Corporate Bonds used to be low risk but losses of 40% are now common.

Commercial property used to be a couter-cyclical lowish risk investment. But no longer.

These changes may have affected your fund's value and risk liability.

Dunstonh has advocated both types of fund as lowish risk on these boards, so it's hardly fair to blame Axa's original assessment - although it is up to them to keep investors up to date.

perhaps

but have a look at this

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=SNDIS&univ=N

no corporate bonds or commercial property in the fund.

Also was it Axa's original assessment - if it was they need to train their staff better.

meggsy

whiteflag wrote: »

perhaps

but have a look at this

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=SNDIS&univ=N

no corporate bonds or commercial property in the fund.

Also was it Axa's original assessment - if it was they need to train their staff better.

The bond was originally a Sun Life investment, ours bought in 1996 through a Birmingham Midshires FA.
Originally launched in 1994
All paperwork from that time refers to it as a Sun Life Flexible Bond. Think it became Axa about 2000.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/fund-and-fund-manager-performance/fund-factsheet.aspx?FundID=9608&CitywireClassSchemeID=1

Old news .... :eek:

http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/news/pensions/content.aspx?ID=304768

dunstonh

Dunstonh has advocated both types of fund as lowish risk on these boards, so it's hardly fair to blame Axa's original assessment

They still remain low risk. Property funds are less volatile but you would expect them to go down during a price crash. They did in the early 90s and then had 16 years of continous growth until this price crash. Low risk does not mean risk free.

Fixed interest funds range from cautious through to adventurous. So, there are examples across the risk spectrum. The low risk ones have had a poor couple of months by their standards but you dont measure an investment by what happens in a couple of months. This is why investments are for the long term. Over the long term, you could expect fixed interest funds to have a lot less volatility than equities. That doesnt remove short term volatility in either direction though.

meggsy

Just browsing around the Axa website, this bond which was sold to us as 'low risk' now appears to be medium risk, shouldn't we have been told this ?

http://www.axa-im.co.uk/index.cfm?pagepath=Ourproducts/distribution_range

In glorious colour on the 'simplified' prospectus pdf file

AXA Distribution Simplified Prospectus

Would be grateful to receive an explanation please the OP's concerns now seem justified, although not adventurous as he was told the risk has obviously changed.