Royal London Governed Portfolio investments

Ella_fella

Has anyone had any experience with investing in the Royal London Governed Portfolio or any feedback about the fund itself?

I was recommended to invest about 100k in a bespoke investment plan but was told that my FA also deals with Royal London as a preferred company.

The advantages of Royal London appear to be that their charges are about 1% less than the charges for the bespoke investments also being advised on and looking at the data sheet over the past 5 years the Royal London portfolio has outperformed the bespoke portfolio being offered.

My FA seemed a bit reticent for me to explore investing money in the Royal London scheme despite the above, am assuming its because they won't receive their annual cut from charges every year or is this me being unfair?

Any comments or feedback gratefully received as always 

eskbanker

Ella_fella said:

The advantages of Royal London appear to be that their charges are about 1% less than the charges for the bespoke investments also being advised on and looking at the data sheet over the past 5 years the Royal London portfolio has outperformed the bespoke portfolio being offered.

If you're minded to choose investments based on public domain data about their charges and the performance over the last five years rather than adviser recommendations (which will presumably be based on personalised risk assessment, objectives, etc), why bother paying an adviser in the first place?

Ella_fella

eskbanker said:

Ella_fella said:

The advantages of Royal London appear to be that their charges are about 1% less than the charges for the bespoke investments also being advised on and looking at the data sheet over the past 5 years the Royal London portfolio has outperformed the bespoke portfolio being offered.

If you're minded to choose investments based on public domain data about their charges and the performance over the last five years rather than adviser recommendations (which will presumably be based on personalised risk assessment, objectives, etc), why bother paying an adviser in the first place?

My FA stated from off that they also dealt with Royal London so it was them who brought it to my attention.

I hear what your saying, I looked at the fact sheet and the RL portfolio over 5 years has outstripped their recommendation (which includes a percentage per annum charges).

They were also quick to point out as you have that past performance doesn't translate to the future however I said they can't guarantee the performance of their portfolio likewise.

The two portfolios are of the same risk level for avoidance of doubt as you did mention that. 

eskbanker

But are you perhaps misunderstanding the role of the financial adviser, which isn't to try to identify the best-performing (or cheapest) investments, but those which are best suited to the investor's objectives, timescales, risk tolerance, etc, etc?

Bottom line is that if you have concerns then you need to raise them with the adviser, as seeking to validate their recommendations via random anonymous internet strangers isn't likely to end well....

dunstonh

Has anyone had any experience with investing in the Royal London Governed Portfolio or any feedback about the fund itself?

Its not a fund. Its a portfolio of funds and there are multiple ones covering different risks and timescales (and income versions too)

I was recommended to invest about 100k in a bespoke investment plan but was told that my FA also deals with Royal London as a preferred company.

You should never use an FA.  Only an IFA (if you don't intend to DIY)

The advantages of Royal London appear to be that their charges are about 1% less than the charges for the bespoke investments also being advised on and looking at the data sheet over the past 5 years the Royal London portfolio has outperformed the bespoke portfolio being offered.

RL is not a bad option. it's not the cheapest an IFA would have to offer (but you are using an FA so that doesn't  matter).  However, I often use them for transactional, low-knowledge consumers where an easy option is needed.   

RL have been particularly successful at the lower risk end without suffering too much from gilt prices going down.

My FA seemed a bit reticent for me to explore investing money in the Royal London scheme despite the above, am assuming its because they won't receive their annual cut from charges every year or is this me being unfair?

Advisers are not paid by providers.  They are paid by you.  The provider shouldn't make any difference.

Ella_fella

dunstonh said:

Has anyone had any experience with investing in the Royal London Governed Portfolio or any feedback about the fund itself?

Its not a fund. Its a portfolio of funds and there are multiple ones covering different risks and timescales (and income versions too)

I was recommended to invest about 100k in a bespoke investment plan but was told that my FA also deals with Royal London as a preferred company.

You should never use an FA.  Only an IFA (if you don't intend to DIY)

The advantages of Royal London appear to be that their charges are about 1% less than the charges for the bespoke investments also being advised on and looking at the data sheet over the past 5 years the Royal London portfolio has outperformed the bespoke portfolio being offered.

RL is not a bad option. it's not the cheapest an IFA would have to offer (but you are using an FA so that doesn't  matter).  However, I often use them for transactional, low-knowledge consumers where an easy option is needed.   

RL have been particularly successful at the lower risk end without suffering too much from gilt prices going down.

My FA seemed a bit reticent for me to explore investing money in the Royal London scheme despite the above, am assuming its because they won't receive their annual cut from charges every year or is this me being unfair?

Advisers are not paid by providers.  They are paid by you.  The provider shouldn't make any difference.

Thanks for the feedback, might be being a little naive but why do you say one should never use a FA? 

If that's rhe case why then do they exist at all.

dunstonh

Thanks for the feedback, might be being a little naive but why do you say one should never use a FA? 

An FA is restricted in the advice areas they give.   This can be a limitation of what they consider (often eliminating non-mainstream options that may be better for those with more wealth) and/or a limitation in the products and providers they consider.  Some will be limited to just one provider and their own fund range whilst others will be limited to a panel of providers.   Many are sales reps of the employer.

So, you are limiting your options by using an FA.

If that's rhe case why then do they exist at all.

For the benefit of their employer.   it is easier to control a salesforce if you reduce the products, providers and funds that they can use.  And in areas of commission (mortgages and insurance) it can result in higher commissions being paid if the adviser is restricted.

Albermarle

The two portfolios are of the same risk level for avoidance of doubt as you did mention that. 

Assessing risk level is not an exact science and there are different scales ( 1 to 7; 1 to 10 etc) One medium risk portfolio, may be somewhat riskier/different than another.