SIPP, Hargreaves Lansdown and Funds

purch

I have just noticed that Hargreaves Lansdown have removed 3 Artemis Funds from their Wealth 150

One of them is the Global Growth Fund

Strangely enough I think I remember that in a lot of their marketing literature a couple of years ago, especially around A Day when they started pushing their SIPP agressively their recommended Portfolio was made up of 4 Funds....Jupiter Global, HL Multimanager Special Sits, AXA Fram Managed Balanced and Artemis Global Growth

This should highlight the potential dangers of thinking that the HL SIPP, and their monthly mailings and pimping of various Funds actually constitutes "advice"

EdInvestor

purch wrote: »

I have just noticed that Hargreaves Lansdown have removed 3 Artemis Funds from their Wealth 150

One of them is the Global Growth Fund

Strangely enough I think I remember that in a lot of their marketing literature a couple of years ago, especially around A Day when they started pushing their SIPP agressively their recommended Portfolio was made up of 4 Funds....Jupiter Global, HL Multimanager Special Sits, AXA Fram Managed Balanced and Artemis Global Growth

Can;t think why you would think it odd for them to take a fund off their list after several years, especially when you look at the market chaos over the last 18 months.Very few investment strategies are set in stone forever.In particular a fund may change its manager, make major alterations to investment style, split in half, change its character totally - look at what has happened to Fidelity Special Situations over the past few years. This is why fund investment can actually be a lot more complicated than direct share investment, where at least you know what you have in your portfolio.

This should highlight the potential dangers of thinking that the HL SIPP, and their monthly mailings and pimping of various Funds actually constitutes "advice"

Who said it did?

purch

Can;t think why you would think it odd for them to take a fund off their list

I didn't say or think it was odd or strange.

The Fund is a Dog !!!

What I think strange, or maybe not strange but ludicrous is that after telling DIY investors it was part of their recommended (and recommended is the word they use) portfolio, they don't update this recommendation with anywhere near the same fanfare.

I am sure that many people have gone the DIY route and used the HL SIPP for a wrapper, and consequently used the HL recommendations to invest.

I think that the pushing of DIY SIPP's to the general public who end up believing the Low Cost hype, is a potential 'scandal' in the making.

LongTermLurker

purch wrote: »

What I think strange, or maybe not strange but ludicrous is that after telling DIY investors it was part of their recommended (and recommended is the word they use) portfolio, they don't update this recommendation with anywhere near the same fanfare.

They do have a section of the site where they update you on adds and changes to the Wealth 150 - it's hard to see how they could be expected to mark down a fund with as much gusto as they promote it without going into the realms of slagging it off! The alternative is not to promote funds so much.

I think that the pushing of DIY SIPP's to the general public who end up believing the Low Cost hype, is a potential 'scandal' in the making.

Surely it's no different to offering/promoting investment in unit trusts per se? I mean, is the promotion of SIPPs any different to promoting S&S ISAs? Or direct fund investment? Are there really people who will invest in a SIPP but wouldn't invest (subject to available cash) in shorter-term vehicles? I've read the arguments for PPPs being cheaper than SIPPs and I guess they are so long as you go for the internal funds - if you go with an NU PPP and choose Jupiter funds you'll pay a higher AMC. On that note, surely the scandal isn't so much the selling/promoting of low cost SIPPs, so much as the promotion of star managers and their funds?

I have an HL SIPP and other funds and have applied the same thoughts to all my fund choices. I'm not saying they are expertly chosen, but I think they're an informed choice. Most, but not all, are on the Wealth 150 list - one that has served me well over a number of years isn't on the list.

(edit - HAPPY 1000TH POST TO ME :beer: :cool: )

purch

I hope you are right, but with the way our society is going where someone else is always to blame.......

I always thought is was strange how hard they pushed this initial recommended portfolio for their SIPP, and then about a year later came out with 2 more entirely different recommended portfolio's for those with more or less than 10 years to go, without any mention anywhere about their previous recommendation.

Personally I don't much care anyway as I am perfectly willing and able to look after my own affairs (and if I ever find myself listening to what that idiot Dampier has to say, I'll book myself into a clinic for the insane straight away), but I hope that the unwary havn't been sucked in by this Low Cost nonsense, and find themselves at retirement in a much worse position that they could have been with proper and decent advice.

whiteflag_3

purch wrote: »

I
Personally I don't much care anyway as I am perfectly willing and able to look after my own affairs (and if I ever find myself listening to what that idiot Dampier has to say, I'll book myself into a clinic for the insane straight away), but I hope that the unwary havn't been sucked in by this Low Cost nonsense, and find themselves at retirement in a much worse position that they could have been with proper and decent advice.

Superb!

Im glad to find there is somebody else out there who thinks the smug git with the beard is an idiot!:T

dunstonh

I dont know how they get away with the wealth 150 list not being considered advice. The FOS said some time back that even a nod towards a product/fund would be considered advice on execution only. Well, surely listing 150 funds that they feel are worth looking at is advice.

LongTermLurker

purch wrote: »

I hope you are right, but with the way our society is going where someone else is always to blame.......

I'm sure you could be right but they do clearly state that they aren't offering advice. Personally, I don't think they're much different to many commercial websites and not really different to Martin's "Savings Top Picks" - there again, look where that got him :rolleyes:

I dont know how they get away with the wealth 150 list not being considered advice. The FOS said some time back that even a nod towards a product/fund would be considered advice on execution only. Well, surely listing 150 funds that they feel are worth looking at is advice.

Not sure I agree on that one. I think 150 funds is quite broad to constitute advice. They could equally just provide access to a 150-fund subset - would that be advice or just restrictive?

Highlighting the subset must be a grey area though

purch

Highlighting the subset must be a grey area though

From where I'm looking, they all look RED to me !!!!!! :mad:

dunstonh

I'm sure you could be right but they do clearly state that they aren't offering advice.

I dont know if I am right or wrong. I think its a grey area as suggested. However, when you consider that the FOS believe that any prompt given towards a certain area on an execution only transaction would be considered advice, then surely presenting a list of funds that is less than 8% of those available as worth looking at is a bit of a prompt.

No doubt it will only be tested when someone complains and a decision needs to be made. That is so often the case in grey areas.