Confused & Disappointed - Pension Transfer

whiteflag_3

**(i have markied all all factually incorrect and poorly researched postings thus FIP to make them easy to spot , as there are so many.)**

EdInvestor wrote:

I've had a look at this UBC fund.It appears to be a bog standard balanced managed fund with a tracker aspect (unspecified). This fund has virtually no history, which is probably because the original balanced managed fund that it emerged from had a ghastly record over the crash period, so it's been canned and replaced with this ostensibly new fund with an upmarket sounding name. That's why it's so big (2bn quid in it).

Its amazing anyone can get so many things so factually incorrect in one paragraph, so here are facts for anyone thats interested.

Its not a bog standard tracker (FIP) - the only bit you got right is that it has tracker aspect. Now correct me if im wrong being a tracker doesnt that mean it will hold the same or similar stocks to the HYP you are so fond of? You Bp, Shell , RBS , Glaxo etc etc

Where it certainly isnt a bog standard balanced managed fund is that there are 5 external fund managers running part of the fund ( no extra cost -in one of your earlier posts you stated external funds cost extra - not the case - once again you have posted incorrect information FIP )

The reason the fund is so big already is because there is alot of institutional money in it. It ticks all the boxes with trustees you see. Passive and active / more than one manager therefore diversification etc etc Even the FSA like it .

This is because Scot Eq constantly monitor the external managers to make sure they are meeting their investement objectives and you havenet got the risk of having all you money with one manager who goes off on one.

oh yes and did i mention theres rebalanceing as well.

BTW The mixed fund to which you refer hasnt been canned and replaced (FIP)

It's far too risky,(FIP) quite out of line with the appropriate asset allocation for John's risk profile (FIP).81% of his money would be invested in shares, of which 30% is in the more risky foreign ones.Less than 20 per cent of the fund is in safer assets like bonds and cash.Not a penny is in commercial property.

I dont understand this as you put forward a similar portfolio earlier in the thread?

This is a unit-linked version of a With-profits fund.

FIP

No its not- most with profits funds have a least 40% in fixed interest . Now correct me if im wrong but in this very post you have said your reasearch leads you to believe there is less than 20 in bonds and property.

The Citywire Fund Finder above rates it in position no 120 out of a total of 187 funds in its sector.

Not really comparing apples with apples though. The graph I saw on the citywire site shows the fund above average since launch. Now that combined with much lower charges is all that some investors are looking for.

I find it quite startling that anyone would be expected to pay 2000 quid for access to this fund ](FIP)[/, but I guess that's pensions for you: despite all this A-day fuss, not a lot has changed.](FIP)[/

(FIP) :mad:

Do you read any other posts. How many times do I have to post there are no initial charges , is doesnt cost £2000 to get into this fund. :mad:

AVOID.

Here is a clear warning to anyone else who is mad enough to follow Edinvestors advice .

This is a person who advocates doing her own research, however her own research is badly flawed and followed up with hearsay and unqualifed kak.
Avoid -your not kidding

EdInvestor

Hi whiteflag

Calm down mate. :beer:

I said it was a bog standard Balanced Managed fund with a tracker aspect, and nothing you've said indicates this is wrong. I mean, look at the rating.

John has indicated he wants an investment mix like this:
Mainstream UK shares: 40%
More risky shares ( overseas/ UK small caps) 24%
Low risk non-share investments ( commercial property, bonds, cash) 38%

This is a low-medium risk profile.Balanced managed funds are one level of risk higher. John should be offered a Cautious managed fund if he was offered this type of investment.

Regarding my comparison with WP funds, I should have made it clear that I meant WP funds before the crash - the way the Equitable fund would have been invested when John first got involved with it.

A major reason IMHO why UK investors have had such bad and unexpected losses in the last few years is because they have been put into investments that are too risky for their profile - Balanced managed ( not "balanced" at all, but actually quite high risk) instead of Cautious Managed is a good example.

People thought With profits funds were like a BS account, when they were invested 75% or more in the stockmarket. :eek: That's why endowments have failed.

If John follows this advice he will be right back where he started and in a third rate fund with high charges to boot (probably the multi-manager aspect is contributing to this).

I'm sure it does tick all the boxes, that is, except for the ones the investor wants ticked - price and performance.

All very depressing, but the bottom line that people need unfortunately to take on board is that nobody looks after your money like you do. Of course, arrival on this website is a major step in the right direction.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

Hi whiteflag

Calm down mate. :beer:

I said it was a bog standard Balanced Managed fund with a tracker aspect, and nothing you've said indicates this is wrong. I mean, look at the rating.

John has indicated he wants an investment mix like this:
Mainstream UK shares: 40%
More risky shares ( overseas/ UK small caps) 24%
Low risk non-share investments ( commercial property, bonds, cash) 38%

This is a low-medium risk profile.Balanced managed funds are one level of risk higher. John should be offered a Cautious managed fund if he was offered this type of investment.

Regarding my comparison with WP funds, I should have made it clear that I meant WP funds before the crash - the way the Equitable fund would have been invested when John first got involved with it.

A major reason IMHO why UK investors have had such bad and unexpected losses in the last few years is because they have been put into investments that are too risky for their profile - Balanced managed ( not "balanced" at all, but actually quite high risk) instead of Cautious Managed is a good example.

People thought With profits funds were like a BS account, when they were invested 75% or more in the stockmarket. :eek: That's why endowments have failed.

If John follows this advice he will be right back where he started and in a third rate fund with high charges to boot (probably the multi-manager aspect is contributing to this).

I'm sure it does tick all the boxes, that is, except for the ones the investor wants ticked - price and performance.

All very depressing, but the bottom line that people need unfortunately to take on board is that nobody looks after your money like you do. Of course, arrival on this website is a major step in the right direction.

Ed -this is the last time im ever going waste my time replying to your posts.

Its impossible to have a serious debate with someone who is clearly incapabe of reading facts and then translating what they read into a meaningful response.

So lets start at the begining -


ITs not bog standard- if you cant reply with a list of balanced managed funds with a passive/ managed elemnet with 5 external managers ill assume you will retract this claim.

The rating is irrelevant. The fund isnt run to be top quartile, therefore its doing what its designed to do ( hence the popularity with trustees etc)

John never indicated he wanted that asset mix. The asset allocator you gave him suggested that, with your help of course.( i take the trouble to re read the previous posts it helps to remain consistent)

Your obviously thick as pig **** as no matter how many times I tell you that there are no extra charges for the multimanagers you insist on saying there are. I know you find it difficult to accept in your world but I have clients in this fund with 0.6%amc, no initial charges, no exit charges.No other charges
( for anyone else reading this - this is fact )

So investors get an above average performing fund with lower than average charges (FACT)

The depressing thing from my point of view is that you havent been banned from this site.

EdInvestor

The rating is irrelevant. The fund isnt run to be top quartile, therefore its doing what its designed to do ( hence the popularity with trustees etc)

Says it all, doesn't it?

I don't really think there's any need for further comment on this fund.

[Deleted User]

I have had a quick look at the SE UBC fund and to be honest it isn`t a fund that I would buy. The fund has underperformed the sector median over the last 3 months, 1 year and 3 years. I would be looking for a lower risk fund which shows evidence of outperformance within the sector.

If the OP looks at the link I placed early on in the thread he will find funds which have demonstrated much better performance and for less risk

Fund of funds do carry very high charges

http://www.investorprofit.com/stocks/stocks-20.html

whiteflag_3

kittie wrote:

I have had a quick look at the SE UBC fund and to be honest it isn`t a fund that I would buy. The fund has underperformed the sector median over the last 3 months, 1 year and 3 years. I would be looking for a lower risk fund which shows evidence of outperformance within the sector.

If the OP looks at the link I placed early on in the thread he will find funds which have demonstrated much better performance and for less risk

Fund of funds do carry very high charges

http://www.investorprofit.com/stocks/stocks-20.html

Sorry if I may sound a little rude, but how many times do I have to post that in this case there are not extra charges for the multimanagers, before the penny might drop?

Please post a list of similar pension funds that have significantly outperformed the UBC, that have significantly lower risk profiles- And heres the important bit

NO initial charges
No exit charges
Annual Management Charge of 1% or less

Then we can compare apples with apples.

Remember the 1% covers everything in this case- wrapper charges
fund management and advice!

[Deleted User]

I don`t have time to research and post other funds. That is the job of an IFA surely.

Fund of funds, as shown in the link above, are expensive and actually have 3 levels of fees, often hidden. I do agree with edinvestor in that the SE UBC fund is `bog standard`

whiteflag_3

kittie wrote:

I don`t have time to research and post other funds. That is the job of an IFA surely.

Fund of funds, as shown in the link above, are expensive and actually have 3 levels of fees, often hidden.

Kittie, Thanks for that, really helpful in taking the debate forward.

That is the job of an IFA surely.

The cheek of some of you posters beggars belief !

What is the point of IFAs doing the research when there is group on this board with a hidden agenda that ignore any facts that are posted anyway. Sad to say it Kittie but up until this point I thought you had alot of intelligent things to say. Shame

This board it getting beyond a joke . You can agree Ed as much as you like, fools seldom differ :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

I have no hidden agenda at all. I have no links to anyone on this board. I say what I see to be the truth and if whiteflag does not agree with me then so be it.

I hope OP has the strength of character to be as independent as me when it comes to investing his hard-earned money

whiteflag_3

kittie wrote:

I say what I see to be the truth and if whiteflag does not agree with me then so be it.

I post there are no extra charges on the UBC (FACT)

You post you post a web site link about general fund of funds that say there are double charges on fund os funds ( true but not for this fund)

With the greatest respect how on earth do you expect me to agree with you?