Scottish Friendly My UK Tracker Options (ISA)

lpgm

Yeah, that's right.

masonic

mal48 wrote: »

But all this is getting beside the point.

Ok, let's get back to that point...

The original argument claimed excessive fees for the product. That's not the case.

excessive: adj. more than is necessary, normal, or desirable.

Paying an effective cost of 1.25% for a fund that is widely available for an effective cost of 0.75% is, by definition, excessive. That's just the SVM fund. The difference in cost for the tactically managed index trackers is just plain ridiculous.

It's immaterial that some funds do better. I'd make more with some at the moment, less with others, including L and G multi indexes and the much vaulted Nutmeg. The repeated argument that SF are charging far more than they claim is not the case.

On that point I'd agree. Performance 'at the moment' is somewhat irrelevant. I gave you a counter-example because you seemed to think that 24% was great performance, but really most of that return corresponds to a devaluation of the pound which has lifted most funds. Performance over the long term, when compared with the same investment bought through a platform is far more important and Bowlhead provided that data a few posts back (I seem to recall the SF fund underperformed the underlying fund by 60% over 10 years).

SF are making a very specific claim about their charges. That is, the AMC is 1.5%. They are not charging more than that in management charges, but management charges do not include all of the costs charged to the fund. Even OCF doesn't include everything, but it is much closer to the truth than AMC.

mal48

We've been through all this. Masonic talks about crazy, again showing his fetish for fees over net returns. The stakeholder funds were not an average of 1.5%. They were capped by law at that figure. My Choice is not a stakeholder policy , but based its charges on those.
It clearly gives the total charges in Key Facts, including the effect on growth. These hold true, short of false claims. As I've said I've cross referenced the figures for SF and the underlying funds, allowing for all stated charges and they always tally.

dunstonh

It clearly gives the total charges in Key Facts, including the effect on growth.

it does not. It gives the AMC which is not the total charge. it is an old fashioned way of giving a charge that is not fully reflective of the actual charges.

SF are using out of date methods of disclosure.

As an aside, they are not providing their data to the third party research companies either. That is not uncommon when it comes to providers that do not have to put their data up for scrutiny by IFAs and other whole of market intermediaries. However, it does mean that you are largely having to take a punt with this rather than being able to carry out suitable due diligence.

jimjames

mal48 wrote: »

It clearly gives the total charges in Key Facts, including the effect on growth. These hold true, short of false claims. As I've said I've cross referenced the figures for SF and the underlying funds, allowing for all stated charges and they always tally.

dunstonh wrote: »

it does not. It gives the AMC which is not the total charge. it is an old fashioned way of giving a charge that is not fully reflective of the actual charges.

So we have the view of a random person ramping a particular product ignoring all the facts or an IFA who has been a long term contributor to the board as well as many other people with same views. I wonder which view is the one that is more reliable and valid.

bigfreddiel

Mal48 is even more aggravating than I am! fj

To be honest I've lost track of his problem now!

masonic

mal48 wrote: »

We've been through all this.

Yes we have, and we'll keep going through it again and again if you insist on continuing to post factually incorrect information.

Masonic talks about crazy, again showing his fetish for fees over net returns.

The net returns are 60% lower over 10 years because of the excessive fees charges by Scottish Friendly. It is cause and effect.

The stakeholder funds were not an average of 1.5%. They were capped by law at that figure. My Choice is not a stakeholder policy , but based its charges on those.

"Stakeholder funds" are completely irrelevant to this discussion and were expensive by today's standards. You seem to have brought these up as a desperate distraction to try and hide from people the fact that Scottish Friendly is charging between 0.75% and 1.25% effective platform fee and the same products can be held for between 0% and 0.25% effective platform fee. That's the same products, with the same performance, less the excessive charges.

masonic

bigfreddiel wrote: »

To be honest I've lost track of his problem now!

I think the psychological term for his problem is Denial.

psychopathbabble

Ok, a little scared to post on this thread but here I go....

I have a scottish friendly bond (yeah, I know, no judgement please!) that has been open since July 2010. I was going to keep it open until the 10 years were up, but having read some of the feedback, I don't know whether to just close it now.

I've paid in £1875. It's currently valued at £2736.96. If I cashed it in today then I would get £2029.33 in my pocket meaning a profit of £154.33.

Thoughts? I'm not particularly bothered about keeping it or cashing it in either way, although I could do with the lump sum as we are getting our debts paid off before I go on to maternity leave shortly.


ETA: in 2020 we will be looking at paying off some of the government loan on our house (help to buy) before the interest kicks in so it would be helpful towards that. But, I will have only paid in £3000 so unless I get a significant return, it won't make much of a dent in the £55k that we need to find to pay the loan!

edinburgher

You've got a fairly complicated set of variables there (maternity/short term debt/medium term debt/investment) - you'll get the best responses starting your own thread. As you'll be aware, if you cash out now, your return will be pretty derisory.