The Woodford Affair - Poor media coverage

[Deleted User]

Do we actually know the ownership structure of RL and Pru funds so loved by the IFAs? What’s stopping Cheshire council from putting a lot of pounds into an RL fund?

bowlhead99

Deleted_User wrote: »

Do we actually know the ownership structure of RL and Pru funds so loved by the IFAs? What’s stopping Cheshire council from putting a lot of pounds into an RL fund?

If my coffee machine is waterproof and hot, what's stopping me loading it up with ingredients and making a roast dinner in it? It is after all, kitchen equipment which heats 'stuff'.

If Boris Johnson is involved in the executive branch of the UK government, what's stopping him becoming the King of Canada? Canada has legislative sovereignty but monarch of Canada is, after all, a position currently held by someone from the UK who has some experience of being in charge of some country-level 'stuff'. #Canadaplus

Or maybe these are simplifications, just like saying a local government pension scheme could draw up a contract with a life insurance company but, not being an individual, would be somewhat unlikely to buy a bond or pension product from such a company. Even though both individuals and local government pension schemes do, after all, have interest in investing in 'stuff' over the long term.

Apologies but a flippant answer is easier than explaining how things actually work, given you're not in the market for such a product anyhow...

SonOf

Deleted_User wrote: »

Do we actually know the ownership structure of RL and Pru funds so loved by the IFAs? What’s stopping Cheshire council from putting a lot of pounds into an RL fund?

Cheshire council would operate LGPS.

Cheshire council could decide to open an onshore or offshore investment bond but I do not believe RL have an investment bond available for new business.

Cheshire council would be an institutional investor and would not open an individual pension scheme.

[Deleted User]

Why is the talk about RL bonds?

Is the issue that units in RL funds cannot be purchased by institutional investors?

[Deleted User]

Because RL sure seems to be open to institutional investors, albeit a tad secretive about it. https://www.rlam.co.uk/Home/Institutional-Investor/Disclaimer/?epslanguage=en-GB&ReturnUrl=/default.aspx?id=9902&epslanguage=en-GB

ffacoffipawb

Royal London at Hargreaves Lansdown?

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/r/royal-london-gmap-growth-accumulation

atush

fred246 wrote: »

I have a friend who is a journalist. If he is writing a piece like that he will just add a picture of someone he knows, like his girlfriend and say they have lost £xk. They work on the basis that no-one is really bothered about the names and how much they have lost. Plenty of people have lost money so they just put in a photo of a random person with a made up loss.

That isnt journalism, its fake news.

SonOf

Why is the talk about RL bonds?

Because you can only access life funds via bonds nowadays.

Is the issue that units in RL funds cannot be purchased by institutional investors?

Back in December, RL confirmed that the majority of the property fund is invested through their multi-asset strategy.
Institutional investors only get a monthly dealing date. Not daily and have to give at least 3 months notice. To be in that fund, they have to contribute a minimum of £50 million for corporate. For professional investors, they have to put in £100k minimum and are still subject to the same notices as institutional. plus they have a 7.2% spread

Royal London at Hargreaves Lansdown?

We are referring to the RL property fund. Not other RL funds. RL do hold a UT/OEIC range. A lot of it legacy from companies it has bought, such as CIS but they still trade a number of them. You wont find RL property on HL though.

bowlhead99

Deleted_User wrote: »

Because RL sure seems to be open to institutional investors, albeit a tad secretive about it. https://www.rlam.co.uk/Home/Institutional-Investor/Disclaimer/?epslanguage=en-GB&ReturnUrl=/default.aspx?id=9902&epslanguage=en-GB

There is a difference between
- on the one hand, RL the mutual life and pensions provider (the reference to 'bonds' above that you were querying, being to the 'investment bond' type of tax wrapper which can hold a range of underlying investents) ; they don't offer unwrapped OEICs, and institutional pension funds and funds-of-funds would not generally want their services, because they are rivals rather than customers/suppliers.

- RLAM the subsidiary of RL which is an asset manager who provides asset management services, which includes running OEICs and other structures (as SonOf mentions, some acquired through historic business combinations) which as an individual you could buy via an intermediary/adviser or through an execution-only platform, and as an institutional investor you could go direct.

The real estate fund they run for institutions is not offered to retail customers (even by execution-only platforms) and carries plenty of warnings about liquidity. They have a version of it accessible through some of their mixed asset funds, but the majority of the real estate funds' asset value is held by RL/RLAM managed entities who hopefully do not want to dump it in a fire sale or flip in and out of it in the short term.