Views on Royal London Governed Portfolio

SonOf

Yes, that was an unfair comparison! Everything is cheaper across the pond!

And doesnt have the same level of regulatory standards or consumer protection. However, economies of scale will mean the US is cheaper in some areas (I have seen US investments that are more expensive than here).

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

And doesnt have the same level of regulatory standards or consumer protection. However, economies of scale will mean the US is cheaper in some areas (I have seen US investments that are more expensive than here).

Pretty sure one can get to under 20 basis points per year in the UK. I am just over 10 basis points in Canada. Sure, you can get 2% per year charges in either country. “Regulatory scrutiny” has little to do with it. Pretty sure the product we are discussing would have had regulatory and legal trouble for false advertising this side of the ocean. Charges tend to be driven down by competition and consumer awareness. Vanguard helped when it came to Canada; others had to offer similar products (although the first ETF was actually Canadian).

Of cause RLG portfolios are actively managed, which is usually more expensive so we are not comparing like with like.

bostonerimus

JoeCrystal wrote: »

As far as I can see from my research, according to their charge literature, To use Income Release, there’s an initial one-off charge of £204 which covers the costs in setting up and administering the Income Release Account. However, if the pension plan has been in force for 12 months or more when the Income Release switch on, then they would not apply this charge.

Yes, that was an unfair comparison! Everything is cheaper across the pond!

It's swings and roundabouts.

However, paying 7.5k of your 40k drawdown means that RL and your IFA will be one of your largest retirement expenses.

JoeCrystal

Deleted_User wrote: »

Pretty sure one can get to under 20 basis points per year in the UK. I am just over 10 basis points in Canada. Sure, you can get 2% per year charges in either country. “Regulatory scrutiny” has little to do with it. Pretty sure the product we are discussing would have had regulatory and legal trouble for false advertising this side of the ocean. Charges tend to be driven down by competition and consumer awareness. Vanguard helped when it came to Canada; others had to offer similar products (although the first ETF was actually Canadian).

Of cause RLG portfolios are actively managed, which is usually more expensive so we are not comparing like with like.

Canada eh? I quite enjoyed Vancouver and Toronto, such nice places for holiday/work. As for the charges, I think there were some reports and consultations looking into the pension charges some years back, especially with the 0.75% charge cap for the Auto-enrollment default fund. Customer awareness will only come with time and frankly, I am not expecting much from an average customer in the UK. If you got people asking questions on this forum regarding their DB pension schemes which I thought are the most straightforward schemes to understand. I do not have much hope for the people with a DC pension scheme although auto-enrolment may increase that anyway once people get larger pots.

bostonerimus wrote: »

It's swings and roundabouts.

However, paying 7.5k of your 40k drawdown means that RL and your IFA will be one of your largest retirement expenses.

I should clarify my comment. I meant that a one-off transfer fee of £7,500 for £1 million pot is a good deal in the grand scheme of things. I do, however, agree that paying 0.75% servicing charge to be rather pointless. Ultimately though, it is up to Mick70 to decide the value of it.

Mick70

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Canada eh?

I should clarify my comment. I meant that a one-off transfer fee of £7,500 for £1 million pot is a good deal in the grand scheme of things. I do, however, agree that paying 0.75% servicing charge to be rather pointless. Ultimately though, it is up to Mick70 to decide the value of it.

The IFA annual chg is 0.35% Not 0.75.
Likelihood is due to my lack of knowledge would use the service for one year then review it and if felt no benefit would try to contact RL myself to see if needed an IFA

JoeCrystal

Mick70 wrote: »

The IFA annual chg is 0.35% Not 0.75.
Likelihood is due to my lack of knowledge would use the service for one year then review it and if felt no benefit would try to contact RL myself to see if needed an IFA

My bad for getting the servicing charge wrong. Hopefully, you are now more confident than ever with this!

Mick70

JoeCrystal wrote: »

My bad for getting the servicing charge wrong. Hopefully, you are now more confident than ever with this!

no problem Joe, this forum actually provides some great knowledge for folk like myself, who have come form a DB background and therefore have no real need to take much interest in how DC pensions operate, some of the replies i have had to my own situation have been of great help and are much appreciated

jonnyh1uk

Mordko is an an example of 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'.


He mixes utter rubbish in among some facts.


From what I have read "Son of" clearly has a very good level of knowledge and understanding.

jonnyh1uk

Deleted_User wrote: »

The costs are very important. In my book anything approaching 1% is way too much (including IFA, fund TER, etc). 1% doesn’t sound like much but it can easily come to 100s of thousands during a typical portfolio lifespan. Given that one can own the world for 0.1%, hard to justify a portfolio which is heavily concentrated in the UK and is underperforming its own benchmark year in year out.

Having said this, an appropriate asset allocation is the number one priority. Someone buying this portfolio must be able to withstand 50% drawdowns.

50% drawdown?


No Royal London Fund has EVER had this.


Also, if you are 15 years plus from retirement why would this be a problem? Especially if you are contributing as you would be buying double the units for the same price after the fall.


If you are closer to retirement you are unlikely to be in a High Equity version of the Governed Portfolios, you would be in one that was more weighted to Fixed Interest than Equity - which is why they have a range.


You quote low charges but Royal London are incredibly low for a risk rate, re-balanced, and actively managed fund.


The prices you have quoted are for Tracker Funds, a completely different proposition.


You clearly do not understand the range or why they have risk ratings described as 'Moderately Cautious' and 'Balanced' for the same portfolio.

[Deleted User]

jonnyh1uk wrote: »

Mordko is an an example of 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'.


He mixes utter rubbish in among some facts.


From what I have read "Son of" clearly has a very good level of knowledge and understanding.

^ That’s a personal attack, which is against forum rules. Peculiar that it’s your very first post ever.