Excessive or reasonable charges for managed SIPP?

dunstonh

I'm not making any argument about how good or bad HL's top 10 is. I'm responding to those who say how bad it is by selectively picking the 2 most expensive ones, and ignoring the very cheap trackers, and the relatively cheap managed funds in that top 10. To which I've had no answer. But I don't expect to.

Who is saying it is bad? I am certainly not saying that.

it's usually from you! Like post 4 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5990954/new-hl-fund-1

You may find it more constructive if you stopped taking things out of context and twisting comments in ways they were not written.

I know HL, Virgin, Vanguard etc all annoy you by making it so easy to cut out the middleman, but at least try to be objective in your posts.

Objective? Thats funny coming from you.
And you are being selective again. I always present DIY as an option.

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

Who is saying it is bad? I am certainly not saying that.

Expensive then, while ignoring the very cheap funds in the list

You may find it more constructive if you stopped taking things out of context and twisting comments in ways they were not written.

Yeah, yeah, "out of context" is your stock reply when you're pulled up on anything. The post I referred to above was clearly an attempt to make out HL investors are gullible fools who fall for marketing.

Objective? Thats funny coming from you.

I have no vested interest whatsoever in how people choose to manage their money, whether they use an IFA or not. I don't constantly slag off popular IFA options. Which would be quite easy. I'll keep this one up my sleeve the next time you imply HL are "expensive", it seems they're better value than the most popular IFA options :rotfl:https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/03/revealed-the-true-cost-of-pension-drawdown/

Plus more reliable

https://www.ftadviser.com/platforms/2019/04/02/nucleus-expects-clients-to-move-away-from-troubled-platforms/

TTFN.

dunstonh

Expensive then, while ignoring the very cheap funds in the list

Correct. As the point being made was that just because you go DIY does not mean it will be cheaper.

Yeah, yeah, "out of context" is your stock reply when you're pulled up on anything. The post I referred to above was clearly an attempt to make out HL investors are gullible fools who fall for marketing.

It was HL's promotion of the fund as if it was a privatisation price/share issue price was my criticism. It is clearly aimed at the inexperienced or low knowledge consumer. It is you that is saying gullible. However, it is fair to say that some fall for their marketing.

Your stock reply is to change the context.

I have no vested interest whatsoever in how people choose to manage their money, whether they use an IFA or not.

Nice try. Your posting history says something completely different though.

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

It was HL's promotion of the fund as if it was a privatisation price/share issue price was my criticism. It is clearly aimed at the inexperienced or low knowledge consumer. It is you that is saying gullible. However, it is fair to say that some fall for their marketing.

Say what?? Your attacks on HL and their investors just get more and more bizarre. You think they're trying to make out a global equity fund is a privatisation :rotfl: I've got their marketing in front of me now, it's obvious what it is. A new fund which will invest in global equities.

I realise they probably cost you business by making it easy to avoid using IFAs, but at least try to be rational in your criticism of them and their investors.

dunstonh

zagfles wrote: »

Say what?? Your attacks on HL and their investors just get more and more bizarre. You think they're trying to make out a global equity fund is a privatisation :rotfl: I've got their marketing in front of me now, it's obvious what it is. A new fund which will invest in global equities.

I realise they probably cost you business by making it easy to avoid using IFAs, but at least try to be rational in your criticism of them and their investors.

I have plenty of business and HL are not costing me a penny. We grow every year. Sorry to disappoint you.

The advert is overpromoting its 100p launch price as it if was a privatisation share. Five times it mentions it will launch at £1. It encourages people to get in there from the start. Indeed, multiple posters on that thread believed it to be a marketing tactic. But never mind, you can keep your biased attacks up. It doesn't bother me.

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

I have plenty of business and HL are not costing me a penny.

Well there's no need for you to keep attacking HL and their investors then, is there? There's loads of bad value in the financial services industry for instance the links I posted above. Why not have a go at them? I mean, look at the charges on Aegon Retirement Choices for instance! Makes HL look cheap!

We grow every year. Sorry to disappoint you.

Maybe if you spent more time on your business and less posting here, telling HL investors how stupid they are, or "low knowledge" to use your words (I know how pedantic you are about terms), you'd be even more successful!

The advert is overpromoting its 100p launch price as it if was a privatisation share. Five times it mentions it will launch at £1.

You counted them? You really are obsessed! I've just read their paper marketing bulletin and it mentions the price once.

It encourages people to get in there from the start. Indeed, multiple posters on that thread believed it to be a marketing tactic. But never mind, you can keep your biased attacks up. It doesn't bother me.

And a £1 launch price obviously means they're trying to make out it's a privatisation?? :rotfl:What is clearly and obviously marketed as a global equity fund?

I'm obviously far too stupid (sorry, "low knowledge") to see the connection to a privatisation. There, an easy bit for you to do a one line snip for your final reply. Don't think there's much more to say is there?

dunstonh

Well there's no need for you to keep attacking HL and their investors then, is there?

You are very sensitive when it comes to HL. Do you work for them?
And once again, I have not attacked investors using HL. Do stop making things up.

I mean, look at the charges on Aegon Retirement Choices for instance! Makes HL look cheap!

Aegon Retirement Choices:
0.29% - £0 - £99,999
0.26% - £100,000 - £249,999
0.23% - £250,000 - £499,999
0.00% - £500,000 upwards
(price capped at £1255 per annum)

They appear cheaper than HL. Their D2C pricing is more expensive and I would pick HL over ARC. There are plenty of reasons not to use ARC. Awful software, not whole of market, hardly any superclean. But I guess you would say I was attacking Aegon by saying that.

Maybe if you spent more time on your business and less posting here, telling HL investors how stupid they are, or "low knowledge" to use your words (I know how pedantic you are about terms), you'd be even more successful!

Wow you are bitter. At least that explains your bias.

You counted them? You really are obsessed! I've just read their paper marketing bulletin and it mentions the price once.

Obsession is picking on one poster on the thread who criticised your beloved HL whilst ignoring all the others that mentioned the marketing style.

And a £1 launch price obviously means they're trying to make out it's a privatisation?? What is clearly and obviously marketed as a global equity fund?

Are you really that naive to what their marketing is saying? Those HL blinkers of yours are just getting in the way.

zagfles

dunstonh wrote: »

You are very sensitive when it comes to HL. Do you work for them?

You think I have a vested interest? :rotfl:

And once again, I have not attacked investors using HL. Do stop making things up.

No, you never mentioned " It is clearly aimed at the inexperienced or low knowledge consumer" or "Another cash cow fund for HL to sell to people that dont know any better.". It must be my "bias" imagining it.

Aegon Retirement Choices:
0.29% - £0 - £99,999
0.26% - £100,000 - £249,999
0.23% - £250,000 - £499,999
0.00% - £500,000 upwards
(price capped at £1255 per annum)

They appear cheaper than HL. Their D2C pricing is more expensive and I would pick HL over ARC. There are plenty of reasons not to use ARC. Awful software, not whole of market, hardly any superclean. But I guess you would say I was attacking Aegon by saying that.

Well if you did practically every time their name was mentioned, then possibly. I only mention them because they came out as far more expensive on the Which report.
But I guess you want to account for discounts they give to IFAs, while at the same time wanting to ignore the discounts I and others have managed to negotiate with HL. Wouldn't want to compare like with like, would we?

Obsession is picking on one poster on the thread who criticised your beloved HL whilst ignoring all the others that mentioned the marketing style.

You're the only one that continually replies, so I engage with you. Would you rather I didn't? In the post that started this mini "debate" I wrote "We constantly get told on here how HL investors are gulllible fools who get sucked in by marketing, who are paying over the odds, who don't know what they're doing. By both IFAs and religiously passive/low cost "DIY" investors. "

If a "religiously passive/low cost DIY investor" had replied I'd probably be having this argument with them instead. So don't take it personally.

Are you really that naive to what their marketing is saying?

Well clearly I am. What do you expect from a "low knowledge" investor who "doesn't know any better"? I read their marketing before reading any MSE threads on it and not once did my "low knowledge" brain make any connection with privatisations. I must be too stupid to even understand their marketing. All I got from it was it's a new global equity fund, higher risk that average due to low number of holdings. Somehow the privatisation connection simply flew over my "low knowledge" head.

username12345678

AlanP wrote: »

There is an awful lot of conflating Active v Passive and IFA v DIY in this thread.

Going DIY does not automatically mean using Passive options.

Going IFA does not automatically mean using Active options.

Please make your minds up what you are arguing about

These sorts of threads do often seem to turn in to circular firing squads,

I think I started something similar a couple years ago when I was starting to look a little more closely at the charges I was paying on my DB transfer SIPP. I don't recall the exact figures but it was (IFA + DFM + active funds) and was somewhere around the 2% mark.

It is easy to see what sort of horrendous long-term impact fees at the level can have...BUT...not as horrendous as trying to do it yourself without at least grasping the basics and costing yourself a whole lot more.

There are lots of excellent books (Tim Hale, Lars Kroijer etc) and great online resources (Monevator, MSE etc) where you can at least get a grounding.

For what my opinion is worth this would be my suggestion to the OP if he's considering DIY:

1. Read a selection of the books mentioned on this thread plus visit the websites and ask questions on the forums. Then re-read and re-ask.

2. Have an honest discussion with yourself about how much you could tolerate losing (in percentage terms from your PF) during a market downturn before your thoughts would likely turn to exiting stage left and crystallizing losses.

3. Structure your asset allocation in sync with above so you can sleep at night regardless of what's happening in the markets.

4. Then work through your fund selections; the information is all there on how to do this and it is no secret where passive consistently outperforms and active (and where it perhaps doesn't). My SIPP is a mix of both.

5. Once you've set-up your PF rebalance once or twice a year to keep your risk levels in check.



I do agree with those who argue that the financial industry (by necessity) creates a mystique and complexity about the processes around managing money that does not actually reflect the true value of the service provided.

UNLESS you are someone who doesn't want to get involved in managing your own money in which case they are worth every penny.

[Deleted User]

UNLESS you are someone who doesn't want to get involved in managing your own money in which case they are worth every penny.

Except that with cheap all in one products even that excuse is gone. It’s still financial industry, just the ones who provide better products