Alliance Trust Savings

dunstonh

Yes, Invesco Perpetual UK Equity Pension Fund (GB00B1H1HB21). It has been good but maybe gone off the boil now, and certainly won't transfer to brokers I'm considering.

That is a pension fund. Not a unit trust/OEIC. I'm surprised it can be held in a SIPP. I would have expected that to only be available on Inv Perp pensions.

HL show this with a 5% initial charge, with a 5% saving on that from HL.

That doesnt mean much though as the initial charge on that one was contract based. Plus, the fund actually had a default initial charge of 5.25%. Not 5.00%. However, it didnt mean you would pay that charge.

Jupiter Distribution class I which shows a spread of 0.43% even though HL show initial charge of zero.

That is a UT. Not an OEIC. So, it is not mono charged. It only suffers an initial charge if you buy direct from Jupiter. Through everyone else, it has no initial charge. So, again, technically, it has a 5.25% initial charge but that is only charged in one distribution method. There is a small spread as you say and HL would suffer that spread just as everyone else does.

Chordeiles

Thanks for your explanations, dunstonh. I'm now a bit clearer about this, and my point was that I didn't get this clarity from the HL website, which in one case shows a spread which I don't suffer, but in other cases shows a spread which I will suffer.

GB00B1H1HB21 is freely available to anyone at HL, but only inside a SIPP. My wife has been buying this since April 2007 (when it was a Woodford fund, I believe), so could be that HL were actively pushing it at that time.

Your explanation on the Jupiter fund also helpful, as ATS are confused about whether they will levy an initial charge on this one !

Chordeiles

Chordeiles wrote: »

45 minutes for my call to be answered today (the guy who answered claimed this was unusual)

My call yesterday was answered almost immediately (once the options were navigated), so maybe the recent long delays were a blip. And once again the lady who answered was very knowledgeable and able to help me with all my queries.

On the face of it they are a bit pricier than iWeb or III but as I'm nearing drawdown then their low drawdown charges swing it fully their way - and reflect a merciful lack of complication in the way they operate drawdown.

Curioiusly UFPLS is actually more expensive than drawdown (even though UFPLS was invented as a way for platforms to avoid payroll overheads) because UFPLS withdrawals attract a charge and also trigger the higher drawdown monthly rate. This suggests their payroll operations are well set up if they want to push you that way.

Chordeiles

Just a note about the lack of a SIPP "transfer-in" charge at ATS (versus £50 + VAT at both ii and iWEB).

I called both Interactive Investor and iWEB and both told me that this fee covers (for instance) the legwork involved in converting funds held in odd classes at HL to the cleanest version of the same funds available on their own platform. You might consider this a bargain, depending on what is in the SIPP you are transferring. However I find it a bit strange considering that there isn't an equivalent "transfer-in" fee for ISAs where the same job may be needed, so clearly I don't understand the whole story.

The opposite applies at ATS, they don't have a "transfer-in" charge but aren't prepared to do this conversion job for you (which suits me, as I nearly completed the job myself whilst still at HL). Their actual words were "if the ISIN isn't the same then it won't transfer in". Not sure what happens then, some suggestion in a recent reply from HL that they will be helpful in converting these, otherwise I guess they get sold and move across as cash.