Is there a list of uk funds and fund classes listing costs?

Imnoexpert_2

I want to look at the funds I hold with HL and see what different share classes are available (I,r,a,b,z,etc) and finds the costs (ter and/or ofc). At present I would have to go to trustnet and look at each fund to do this. I think in the past I saw a list of all available uk funds and the classes within them giving price and cost information. Does anyone know of such a list?

On share classes generally I take it there will be an increasing proliferation. If HL do negotiated a better deal with a fund manager and say fidelity a slightly less good one will ther be a HL fund class and a fidelity fund class for each fund?

As I look at other platforms and when HL announce the new deals they have done it will be useful to have a simple list for comparison purposes.

Or am I complicating things and it's all much simpler?

kidmugsy

Over the years I've only rarely bought a fund - I prefer Investment Trusts: so much simpler and, usually, with lower charges.

dunstonh

The paid for version of trustnet (FE Analytics) would do this. I dont know if the free version will.

On share classes generally I take it there will be an increasing proliferation. If HL do negotiated a better deal with a fund manager and say fidelity a slightly less good one will ther be a HL fund class and a fidelity fund class for each fund?

They will be. Also note that contrary to perception, HL are not the only one looking to get superclean. Other platforms and distribution channels are getting them to. Indeed, some are already available elsewhere.

I prefer Investment Trusts: so much simpler and, usually, with lower charges.

Charges are not typically lower. ITs have been priced unbundled for years (excepted packaged ITs). Now that UT/OEICs are pricing in unbundled form, the differences are smaller and in may cases the comparable UT/OEIC is cheaper.

Also, generically, ITs are considered more complicated than UT/OEICs due to things like gearing and premium/discount pricing. This is not to say that they can be suitable or best for someone. However, I would disagree on your cost and simplicity view.

kidmugsy

dunstonh wrote: »

Charges are not typically lower.

Really? Have you got a source for that? The ones I've been interested in have been noticeably cheaper than comparable, active funds. You wouldn't need to be much of a cynic to wonder whether HL's otherwise odd assault on its customers who hold ITs is because it doesn't want other customers swapping into ITs.

dunstonh wrote: »

Also, generically, ITs are considered more complicated than UT/OEICs due to things like gearing and premium/discount pricing.

Ha! "Considered " by whom? Gearing and discount seem pretty easy to me, while the obscurity of what goes on within funds (often funds of fleeting existence contrasted, say, with a century-old IT) is off-putting. I'll grant you that a passive fund such as a Vanguard fund could be attractive but that's very much in a minority. I can also see attractions in ETFs, I admit. I even hold some. But classical unit trusts/oeics? They would need to be pretty special cases if they were to interest me.

jimjames

kidmugsy wrote: »

Really? Have you got a source for that? The ones I've been interested in have been noticeably cheaper than comparable, active funds. You wouldn't need to be much of a cynic to wonder whether HL's otherwise odd assault on its customers who hold ITs is because it doesn't want other customers swapping into ITs.

I was just posting that sadly I think Dunstonh is correct. I do prefer ITs but the charges post RDR are looking a bit high on some which is why I think some of the savings schemes are increasing their charges so the trust doesn't cover the cost and gets a lower TER.

However on checking them for Aberdeen at least the charges do seem lower than I recall in the past.

Eg UK tracker 0.3% ongoing costs
New Dawn 1.1% ongoing costs

If held in their plan then no additional costs to pay. Compare to HL where the lowest will be around 1.1% for managed and 0.5% for tracker then it compares well.

dunstonh

Really? Have you got a source for that? The ones I've been interested in have been noticeably cheaper than comparable, active funds.

Have you been comparing clean/superclean pricing to the IT or retail pricing?

Retail will nearly always appear more expensive. Clean and superclean levels the playing field.

Ha! "Considered " by whom?

Regulator, Ombudsman and pretty much anyone involved in retail of them. This includes the companies that risk rate them.

Gearing and discount seem pretty easy to me

Doesnt mean they are to the average consumer though.