Scottish Friendly My UK Tracker Options (ISA)

mal48

big's reply baffles me.The 1.5 % AMC covers charges. I agree with bx boards. The single tracker fund is poor value. I've said that repeatedly and I wouldn't invest in it. I chose it as an example for a different reason. It's easy to to distinguish between the fund and the underlying fund to see how charges are apportioned, M

bigadaj

mal48 wrote: »

big's reply baffles me.The 1.5 % AMC covers charges. I agree with bx boards. The single tracker fund is poor value. I've said that repeatedly and I wouldn't invest in it. I chose it as an example for a different reasons. It's easy to to distinguish between the fund and the underlying fund to see how charges are apportioned, M

I've quoted the figures for the active fund that you seem to say offers fantastic returns, and demonstrated that they are not and are poor value. Not as poor value as the straight trackers but poor all the same when compared with any equivalent; average peformance, very high cost and inflexible contract which penalises withdrawal or suspension of payments.

This would have been a very average product twenty years ago, now it's pretty terrible.

masonic

Mal, it must be very frustrating for you to keep going over the same ground with different people, all of whom seem to be unable to understand the investment opportunity this fund represents and conclude it is a poor option.

mal48

To big. SF use external managers for their funds and have done for years. In the case of the Growth Fund it's SVM. They are are very consistent fund managers, but are largely mid cap stock and dropped with the Brexit vote. Today's figures are 1 month 2nd quartile, 3 years 1st and 5 years 2nd. The charge in the My Choice policy is 1.5%, though this may not apply for other of their policies. The direct comparison with V 100 is the Higher Fund, which is benefitting from the fall of the pound with its foreign earnings.The last I looked the annual return was 15%, with my own portfolio at 11%. I keep coming back to the point that this is a reasonable investment and as even big realises, nothing too dramatic. By the way SF Growth is hardly a closet tracker. I'd recommend the SVM site for their methodology, M

mal48

Little to reply to in masonic's assertions. As for big, he's hardly demonstrated that the returns are poor or the policy doesn't represent good value with its net returns. Some things big gets plain wrong. There is no inflexible contract, no exit penalty and you can stop and restart payments whenever you like, M

bxboards

mal48 - I looked into the Scottish Friendly ISA when it was promoted on TopCashback a while ago and I concluded it was very poor value for a average fund which looks and smells very much like a wrapper over a tracker fund.

High fees componded year in and year out over the lifetime of an ISA take away an incredible amount of money when you look at it over 20 or 30 years. Thousands and possibly 10s of thou sounds of pounds eaten away in fees that would be better invested in more units.

Do you know the TER for your fund? I would be looking at a TER of less than 0.20% for any tracker fund, or something that looks very much like a tracker.

it is no point paying above average fees for average performance - this is a the definition of a poor investment choice. You either understand this or you don't.

mal48

One point to masonic. If people read the previous posts, I wouldn't need to keep going over the same ground. I'll admit that some of the blind assertions and sheer lack of knowledge can be frustrating, but hopefully things have been clarified, even for you, Mal

mal48

To bx. Read through the previous posts. The Isa contains both active and tracker funds. Some funds contain a number of indexes and are tactically managed. The policy works like a platform. The net returns are good.which is important to investors who are not overly fixated on charges. Nobody denies they're important, but net returns more so. These are good, so this is not a poor investment choice. As for TER, I gave this in a reply to dunstonh today. I thought I made myself clear, but perhaps you didn't understand. In the case of SF, the AMC and the TER are the same at 1.5%. If you want the reason for this, again, read my previous posts, M

lpgm

Novice investors need all the help they can get. And one simple rule of thumb is don't invest with a bank or a friendly society - they might make it a bit easier for you, but there's a price to pay.

bxboards

mal48 wrote: »

. The net returns are good.which important to investors who not overly fixated on charges.

Frankly speaking anyone investing needs to zero in on the charges as compounded over a 20 or 30 year lifecycle - investments are long term - this can eat into your returns massively.

You can get good net returns from far cheaper alternatives.

I have no idea why you seem to be so stubbornly and willfully ignoring this?