Funds suggestions

whambamboo

Debt_Free_Chick wrote:

I didn't read it in quite that way.

In the 12 months up to 31 December 2005 a dilution levy was charged as follows:
For Aberdeen Japan Growth Fund - on two occasions. The average rate of dilution levy was 0.1%.
For Aberdeen Ethical World Fund - on one occasion. The average rate of dilution levy was 0.13%.
For Aberdeen Long Bond Fund - on two occasions. The average rate of dilution levy was 0.03%.
All other Funds did not apply a dilution levy.

Seems unusual to me.

Debt_Free_Chick

whambamboo wrote:

Seems unusual to me.

Certainly for the Aberdeen funds - but you would need to do the same analysis for any other fund/manager you were looking to invest in. And of course, Aberdeen's past performance at applying the dilution levy is not a guide to what they might do in future

Certainly, the circumstances need to be "unusual" in that there needs to be a significant mismatch between the number of buyers and sellers on any given dealing day. I guess the question is "what is significant?" and I think the answer would probably be "sufficient to cause the manager to apply a dilution levy"

I'm not trying to steer you one way or the other. Personally, I have no preference and hold both dual and single priced funds.

I would expect that the actual costs would be no different, however the fund is priced. And let's face it, neither pricing basis gives the investor a completely transparent charging structure on the day they intend to invest.

However, if a manager offered exactly the same fund, but gave us a choice of investing in that fund on either a dual or single priced basis, I would expect the charges actually levied over the life of the investment to be exactly the same. After all, we're only talking about the way the charges are applied. There is absolutely no reason why they should be any different - when we simply consider whether a fund is dual or single priced.

If they were not, then I would be suspicious/cynical

Edit: Of course, where a dilution levy is not applied, then any dilution is made by an adjustment to the unit price. In this case it's not transparent, but it's being imposed anyway.

p.s. Where has everyone else gone?