Scottish Friendly My UK Tracker Options (ISA)

mal48

I respect my investment returns jimjames, not posters who trade insults online, M

dunstonh

dunstonh is clearly still concerned with charges per se and ignoring net returns.

That is because cheaper alternatives that do the same thing are available.

Every other fund house and platform/provider has moved over to OCF for annual charges. SF still use AMC. AMC reporting is lower than OCF reporting. It is less transparent.

jimjames

mal48 wrote: »

As for costs, SF as a mutual doesn't have shareholders and so don't have to pay them. Instead they can employ excellent investment staff and get really good returns for their clients, M

The comedy value is brilliant. I'd prefer to use a known fund manager that has a long term track record for performance than some unknown, un-named person. If you really believe SF have superior investment staff because they're mutual then I'm afraid you're deluded. They should have lower costs so that makes it even more outrageous that they're such poor value compared to other options.

mal48

This seems to be a continual issue. I think SF's AMC is their full and ongoing charge and I have reasons for thinking that. My Choice is described as the policy, The Higher Fund is described as the fund. The L and G trackers are the underlying funds and their charges are included in the 1.5%. Elsewhere SF desribe it as the only charge and say they regard it as what they call an upsell product, that adheres to the old stakeholder concept that limited all charges to 1.5% by law. Nevertheless, I am aware of charges and will consider Vanguard in the next financial year. SF have advantages though, not least in monitoring the external management of funds, which I'd have to do myself. The returns are very good, or I wouldn't be investing in it..My real point all along has been that this is a sound product with potential rewards and very acceptable for novice investors, particularly if they have only small sums to invest. If they move to more sophisticated products well and good, but they shouldn't be put off SF out of hand.They do need to be warned though of the variation of charges between different SF policies and steered clear of the single tracker funds, which even I agree are not good value, M

mal48

The SF Active Fund has known, listed managers. Also check the SVM site, as they are the external managers. As for the L and G funds they are trackers. SF tactically allocate between these and do a sound job. Some SF policies which I don't invest in have very high charges. The reason given is the small amounts invested, but that's not my problem, nor is it part of my argument, M

dunstonh

I think SF's AMC is their full and ongoing charge and I have reasons for thinking that.

So, please tell us what the OCF is then as SF do not publish it.

mal48

It's easier to to take a single tracker fund as the example, so the UK Tracker Fund on page 13 of Key Facts. Under- What does the UK Tracker Fund invest in?-it says-Therefore the fund will invest in underlying funds or instruments. ...-This clearly indicates that the external L and G fund is the underlying fund, whose charges are included in the 1.5%. On page 14 under-What are the deductions for?- it says-The deductions include expenses, charges and any other reductions. Sample figures are given below and dunstonh's already done his own arithmetic on those, M

bigadaj

mal48 wrote: »

It's easier to to take a single tracker fund as the example, so the UK Tracker Fund on page 13 of Key Facts. Under- What does the UK Tracker Fund invest in, it says-Therefore the fund will invest in underlying funds or instruments. ...-This clearly indicates that the external L and G fund is the underlying fund, whose charges are included in the 1.5%. On page 14 under-What are the deductions for it says-The deductions include expences, charges and any other reductions. Sample figures are given below and dunstonh's already done his own arithmetic on those, M

So the logical extension is that the active fund managers are working for nothing, unusual that.....

bxboards

mal48: You mentioned a UK tracker fund at 1.5/% in the post above.

This is VERY high for a tracker fund, of the top of my head Fidelity and HSBC do UK tracker funds below 0.10%

If you are being charged 1.5% for a tracker fund this is very poor value indeed.

bigadaj

bigadaj wrote: »

So the logical extension is that the active fund managers are working for nothing, unusual that.....

Ok, there's no external management by the look of things. The growth fund is invested in Scottish friendlys own growth oeic which is listed on trustnet. It lies in the uk all companies sector, an ocf is published at 1.59% and performance appears very average, somewhere around the second and third quartile for the five years data there is easy access to for comparison.

Nothing too dramatic there but it is very expensive for a closet tracker and there are penalties if you withdraw or stop contributing.

I don't see what is attractive when you can buy a vanguard lifestrategy and run it on a cheap platform at around a third the cost, have no penalties if you withdraw or stop contributing, have much more diversification and far better performance.