Views on Royal London Governed Portfolio

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

Not with pension funds and life funds it isnt as there is no TER or OCF with these. The AMC calculation is on par with TER.

However transaction costs such as stamp duty are separate from the AMC and are therefore not included.

JoeCrystal

There you go Mordko. There is a pdf file saved on RL's website, dated from last April. The information is available on the datasheet rather than fact sheet, only though its Adviser website.

Governed Portfolio 4 Total Transaction Costs for GP4 is 0.152%
Broker Commission: 0.029%
Transaction Taxes: 0.143%
Legal Fees: 0.005%
Anti-dilution Levy: -0.038%
Slippage Costs: 0.006%
Stock Lending Fees: 0.008%

The internet doesn't seem to have any idea what is the average Transaction Costs for the UK DC pension funds is on the whole despite after googling it for a while.

[Deleted User]

JoeCrystal wrote: »

There you go Mordko. There is a pdf file saved on RL's website, dated from last April. The information is available on the datasheet rather than fact sheet, only though its Adviser website.

Governed Portfolio 4 Total Transaction Costs for GP4 is 0.152%
Broker Commission: 0.029%
Transaction Taxes: 0.143%
Legal Fees: 0.005%
Anti-dilution Levy: -0.038%
Slippage Costs: 0.006%
Stock Lending Fees: 0.008%

The internet doesn't seem to have any idea what is the average Transaction Costs for the UK DC pension funds is on the whole despite after googling it for a while.

That’s good, comparable to the total cost of my portfolio, although I don’t have any other costs. Wonder why it’s for “advisers” rather than the customers. Were you aware they are lending your stocks and bonds and are getting paid for it? That’s another risk.

Overall, looks like the costs are reasonable for an active fund but the risk is high even for their balanced/conservative options and transparency is poor.

Mick70

mcc100 wrote: »

The exact words on the paperwork from my IFA are:

A mutual fund discount is also on offer from Royal London and this will currently reduce the fund charge by a further 0.15% per annum to just 0.25%. It is Royal London's stated intention to maintain this discount in the range of 0.15% to 0.25% per annum.

Im surprised at that , well done to you , i had been given impression the lowest rate would be 0.35%
If I use RL going forward I will be charged 0.35% by RL (large value fund) and 0.35% by the IFA also, giving total combined annual charges of 0.7% - wonder if i should question it now?

SonOf

Wonder why it’s for “advisers” rather than the customers.

Because they only retail via advisers.

Overall, looks like the costs are reasonable for an active fund but the risk is high even for their balanced/conservative options and transparency is poor.

Transparency is good. They publish a monthly account of the investment changes and the reasons why. You would also be hard pushed to find disclosure of charges like that with others.

And as aready stated, their GP range is time weighted. They factor timescale into the allocations. So, a cautious but long term investment period would be higher in equities than medium or short term. You need to factor timescale into the allocations.

SonOf

Im surprised at that , well done to you , i had been given impression the lowest rate would be 0.35%

Its the same for everyone. Mcc100 is factoring the 0.15% (or whatever it will be) mutual bonus as a reduction in the charges. It is effectively a reduction but you never know what the mutual bonus will be as its a share of profits.

If I use RL going forward I will be charged 0.35% by RL (large value fund) and 0.35% by the IFA also, giving total combined annual charges of 0.7% - wonder if i should question it now?

The 0.35% adviser charge is optional
And you will get around 0.15% rebated as the mutual bonus.

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

Because they only retail via advisers.



Transparency is good. They publish a monthly account of the investment changes and the reasons why. You would also be hard pushed to find disclosure of charges like that with others.

And as aready stated, their GP range is time weighted. They factor timescale into the allocations. So, a cautious but long term investment period would be higher in equities than medium or short term. You need to factor timescale into the allocations.

The reason I said that the transparency is poor was because I doubt the customers are aware that their pension provider includes lots of derivatives, bets on interest rates and that the fund manager is lending their securities, all within their portfolios. Assume you are an IFA, right? Do you tell this to the customers?

The “life strategy” adjustments are cool but their so-called “cautious” portfolios, and “about to retire” options are high risk.

JoeCrystal

Deleted_User wrote: »

That’s good, comparable to the total cost of my portfolio, although I don’t have any other costs. Wonder why it’s for “advisers” rather than the customers. Were you aware they are lending your stocks and bonds and are getting paid for it? That’s another risk.

Overall, looks like the costs are reasonable for an active fund but the risk is high even for their balanced/conservative options and transparency is poor.

Good to know then. I was not aware of this, but then, I would not be surprised if most of the UK pension funds are involved with the stock lending. Either way, I am happy with the performance of this fund so far. Thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

As for transparency, I am finding it impossible to get any actual transaction cost for my workplace default fund! At least you can find such costs on RL, unlike Aegon.

[Deleted User]

Either way, I am happy with the performance of this fund so far

Last 10 years, one had to have a LOT of skill to find an investment that didn’t perform. It’s unfortunate these funds started their existence in 2009. A little earlier and it would have given people a much better feel for potential drawdowns.

Mick70

SonOf wrote: »

Its the same for everyone. Mcc100 is factoring the 0.15% (or whatever it will be) mutual bonus as a reduction in the charges. It is effectively a reduction but you never know what the mutual bonus will be as its a share of profits.



The 0.35% adviser charge is optional
And you will get around 0.15% rebated as the mutual bonus.

yeah ive questioned the IFA about ongoing charge if do the transfer but he has said this is the most critical part of what they offer , seeing as the sum is over £1m . I can cancel the IFA management charge at any point so may try it for a year and see if benefit or not as this area is all new to me at moment