Investment pension advice

cam71101

Hey everyone,

I have a high medium risk passive tracker fund pension plan with Aviva. To be specific, it's the HSBC Global Managed Dynamic Portfolio risk level 7. The annual charges are .2%.

All of this was set up by my financial advisor but having read a few investments books, I realised that the .35% ongoing charges from my advisor will compound over the years. I'm going to get in touch with him and let him know that I want to take control of my pension.

Can anyone recommend a similar portfolio with low annual charges?

I've tried searching myself with Hargreaves and Lansdown account, but I'm just completely overwhelmed by the choices.

Albermarle

I have a high medium risk passive tracker fund pension plan with Aviva. To be specific, it's the HSBC Global Managed Dynamic Portfolio risk level 7. The annual charges are .2%.

If you mean that the whole cost for the pension, including the fund cost is zero point 2 % , then it must be a special low price available for financial advisors only . Also the advisor cost of 0.35% is also rather low .
So 0.55% in total . For comparison Hargreaves Landsdown platform charge alone is 0.45% , before any fund charges ( typically 0..25% to 1.6 % )

Malthusian

Have you asked Aviva whether they can simply remove the adviser as servicing agent and his 0.35% per year?

Wanting low charges and looking at Hargreaves Lansdown does not compute. (I use HL.)

SonOf

I have a high medium risk passive tracker fund pension plan with Aviva. To be specific, it's the HSBC Global Managed Dynamic Portfolio risk level 7. The annual charges are .2%.

That is not a tracker fund.

Can anyone recommend a similar portfolio with low annual charges?

What is wrong with what you have?

I've tried searching myself with Hargreaves and Lansdown account, but I'm just completely overwhelmed by the choices.

HL is more expensive than Aviva. Aviva is whole of market just like HL. Aviva also doesnt have the secondary list of charges that HL has.

It seems strange to start your post about wanting to lower charges but then end it by saying you want to increase them.

then it must be a special low price available for financial advisors only .

Albermarle, Aviva give IFAs special terms over their default pricing. 0.18-0.25% is typical. However, the fund charge is on top. I suspect the OP is missing the platform charge. So, its likely to be around 0.2x% plus fund charge.

Alexland

SonOf wrote: »

Aviva give IFAs special terms over their default pricing. 0.18-0.25% is typical. However, the fund charge is on top. I suspect the OP is missing the platform charge. So, its likely to be around 0.2x% plus fund charge.

Although it always feels good to be getting a discount, a customer could just go directly to Cavendish and pay 0.25% platform fee on an ISA or SIPP. If the account valuation is high enough then the OP might be able to reduce their cost further with a fixed or capped price platform.

Alex

MaxiRobriguez

Is it normal for an IFA to setup a portfolio for a client which contains one single fund?

I've never actually needed to hire an IFA but that just seems incredibly lazy.

Linton

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Is it normal for an IFA to setup a portfolio for a client which contains one single fund?

I've never actually needed to hire an IFA but that just seems incredibly lazy.

A good risk aligned multi-asset fund is fine for a small investor with simple requirements. It is not being lazy, as far as we know from the limited information available it is the appropriate investment for the situation.


The main role of an IFA is to help the customer manage his/her financial situation, not to pick funds.

SonOf

Is it normal for an IFA to setup a portfolio for a client which contains one single fund?

Absolutely. Multi-asset funds are the ideal solution for small or very inexperienced investors.

I've never actually needed to hire an IFA but that just seems incredibly lazy.

IFAs have to give best advice. If that is what is right for the individual then that is what they should have.

Indeed, for transactional advice (rather than ongoing), you tend to find its nearly always a multi-asset fund.

MaxiRobriguez

Fair enough. it just feels like advice that could be gotten at with a five minute google search, although yes I don't know what facts the IFA based their decision on.

Alexland

Some customers might expect to see enough fund selection and rebalancing activity to 'look busy' and other customers might be satisfied that the advisor has make a good diversified single fund selection for them.

By logic you would expect a fund manager to have better economies of scale in managing a single fund solution that than individual advisors building their own multi fund portfolios. Still some advisors outsource the portfolio management to get similar economies. I prefer using a fund manager as the performance is then in the public domain for everyone to see.

Alex

Malthusian

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Fair enough. it just feels like advice that could be gotten at with a five minute google search

*googles "best simple investment"* Oh hey, look, a bond paying 8% per year with no risk.

Five minute Google searches cannot give best advice.

Saying that giving regulated advice on a single-fund solution is easy because it takes five minutes to find a single-fund solution is like saying that surgery is easy because anyone can pick up a scalpel. The fund is just a tool.

Alexland wrote: »

Some customers might expect to see enough fund selection and rebalancing activity to 'look busy' and other customers might be satisfied that the advisor has make a good diversified single fund selection for them.

True. And some customers prefer to talk about their lives, their goals and how to achieve them in annual meetings with their adviser, rather than listen to the adviser waffling on about how great his asset allocation is and what they should switch into where. Not all of them, but quite a few. There is more than one way to do financial advice. There is nothing wrong with using a single-fund solution just as there is nothing wrong with using a bespoke portfolio.

For every person that claims that single-fund solutions are lazy you will find someone claiming that IFAs don't have the expertise for investment management and therefore shouldn't recommend bespoke portfolios. All of them are wrong. Financial advice is both art and science and this part is art.

If someone considers a single-fund solution "lazy" and wants to see something more complex they can find an IFA who will happily offer one. The IFA market caters for multiple preferences.