Scottish Friendly My UK Tracker Options (ISA)

mal48

Given the choice between The L and G Multi index 7 and SF Higher Fund, choosing the former would be likely to put you out of pocket, though past performance is not a guide to future performance and all that. I'll grant you Vanguard is more tempting and I might consider it next financial year, though there are features of SF, I prefer and I am happy with its performance. I would also mention the Vectis card, but that wouldn't be for 'serious investors'.

mal48

Be interested to know how dunstonh got the risk figure for the SF Higher Fund. I'll admit SF are opaque.The score can only be worked out from the underlying funds and given the Higher Fund is differentiated, should be somewhat lower than these. As it's also potentially a mixed fund, my guess-ok a guess-is that the risk score is roughly on a par with L and G 7. What I do know is that SF are a very cautious outfit, Mal

masonic

Every dodgy investment needs a shill to come along and incessantly promote it. 8 (almost) consecutive posts over 6 hours on a thread that has been dead for 4 months suggests an ulterior motive. Not a single useful piece of information about the fund in question either. All of the analysis discussed earlier in the thread still holds in my view.

I'm starting to get a "barge pole" feeling about this "investment" and this poster.

mal48

Rather than ' incessantly promoting ' these funds, I simply answer arguments made. Little In masonic's last post to respond to. Reason for my long delay was that this thread seems to have been split in two last April. I kept coming back to it, but saw no new posts. Then found the more recent yesterday. Good points hold up whenever they're posted. Happy investing, Mal

mal48

One thing though. These investments really can't be called dodgy. That suggests either illegality or very poor returns. Be interested to hear which masonic thinks it is. No doubt he'll resort to his 'high' charges claim, but I really do appreciate that he believes charges are more important than net returns, Mal

dunstonh

The product is not dodgy. It is obsolete and expensive and lacks modern standards of disclosure. However, you seem to be very keen to promote it when everyone else can clearly see the problems with it. So, that does suggest a marketing motive on your part.

All the relevant mentioned funds have risk scores in the low 90s

You are not using FE ratings by any chance? They are woefully inadequate and unreliable. Especially on multi-asset funds where the asset allocations can change.

Put the funds through a decent risk profiler and come back with how they compare.

bxboards

Years ago when I was much more naive financially I took out what was called a 10 year Scottish Bond with these people. All the sales brouchures showed smiling people with graphs showing growth.

Lets just say that having paid in 25 pounds a month over 10 years, my returns were nothing like what was projected in the marketing. Much of my money seemed to be pared away be taken in charges and fees. I got back just about what I paid in after 10 years.

masonic

mal48 wrote: »

One thing though. These investments really can't be called dodgy. That suggests either illegality or very poor returns. Be interested to hear which masonic thinks it is.

A valid definition of dodgy is: "of low quality"
That is what masonic thinks it is. And masonic is right on this one IMHO.

No doubt he'll resort to his 'high' charges claim, but I really do appreciate that he believes charges are more important than net returns, Mal

High charges + High returns = High risk. But we can't have any sensible conversation about risk owing to the opaqueness of the product, which is itself a risk.

mal48

In reply to dunstonh, it was masonic who used the unfortunate colloquialism 'dodgy', possibly libellously. I'm glad you agree with me.The With Profits Fund might be obsolete.The robo advised funds are highly up to date and perform well. They're also far cheaper than you and masonic suggested. I don't promote products for profit, but if you like to think I do, so be it.
In response to bx boards, you're going back in time. This is a very different, more modern and far cheaper product.
As for masonic, I correctly predicted that he'd respond with charges, thinking them more important than net returns. A vehicle that consistently beats the All Share Index by more than 5% is hardly low quality. Risk is designated high, but comparable with similar funds and in line with the risk of the UK stock market. Lower risk funds are available on My Choice. Finally, if masonic thinks masonic is right, there's little to be said, Mal

dunstonh

When this thread was started, the information was correct for the products offered. The charges have improved with their latest offering but are still high.

The reduction in yield due to charges over 10 years is 5% to 3.4%. i.e. 1.6%. Similar DIY options would be around 0.5%.

So, its three times more expensive than comparable options.

You can understand why it is more expensive. It targets the small investor with regular contributions. That is is an expensive area compared to single premium. I recall one platform telling me that just one single missed payment (bounced) would wipe out the profit of around 7 investors. Also, SF tend to run marketing gimmicks. So, they have to be paid for too.