Transferring from Nest to Vanguard

bostonerimus

On the UK Vanguard platform it's true that you can only buy Vanguard funds, but they provide a good range of funds that will be sufficient for the vast majority of people to build an appropriate portfolio. There is a fetish with choice for choice's sake.

[Deleted User]

themadvix said:

More information - I am self employed, I set up the Nest pension a few years ago when I knew I needed a pension (as had nothing) but didn’t know as much as I do now. So I was continuing to contribute to it until I opened my VG one last month. And I am buying ETFs so it is cheaper.  It’s less than £100k at the minute, so that probably counts as a small pot, but I do know enough now to know I don’t want to be paying more in fees than I have to be. Not sure about comments about ‘fan boys’ on other websites, I do my own research, I just wanted an opinion about this.

Now I think I’ll be waiting for a new PM!

IMHO, you are spot on with your strategy.  

When I last looked, under 100K Vanguard offered the best, most cost effective solution. Particularly if you use ETFs.  Somewhere around 100 to 200k platforms with lower cap on costs become a little more cost efficient.  

The “choice” issue is a red herring.  There are providers offering funds which are as good as Vanguard’s and might be a few bp cheaper (or more expensive) but the difference is negligible and Van does offer all the reasonable options which one may need. 

FSCS protection is also a red herring.  Only an issue for small brokers going bankrupt with assets too small ito cover bankruptcy costs.  Completely irrelevant when talking about Vanguard. 

dunstonh

The second and third points are falsehoods. So we are back to the very first point in this thread which was also completely false. 

You are wrong on the second point, and your claim that the third point indicates you believe that Vanguard have the best trackers in every area.  Yet the evidence suggests otherwise.  

Whilst FSCS protection has limited value for many people when it comes to mainstream unit linked funds, there are plenty of consumers that need the protection it offers.  Not explicitly for the FSCS protection but the knowledge that the risk of failure with FSCS protection funds is lower than with funds with no FSCS protection.

Like it or not, ETFs are treated as higher risk in the UK due to lower consumer protection.  Those that understand the extra risks and take care to avoid the issues with certain ETFs will not consider consumer protection important.  

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

The second and third points are falsehoods. So we are back to the very first point in this thread which was also completely false. 

Like it or not, ETFs are treated as higher risk in the UK due to lower consumer protection.  Those that understand the extra risks and take care to avoid the issues with certain ETFs will not consider consumer protection important.  

There are no issues with “certain ETFs”.  The insurance you are talking about is for protection against Vanguard or NEST going bankrupt and then consultants charging so much for bankruptcy processing that the assets of either Vanguard or NEST can’t cover the costs.  While there are multiple scenarios of who would cover the shortfall in bankruptcy costs (government is one of the options regardless of insurance), the simple answer is that Vanguard is a) too big to fail and b) has lots of assets to cover the costs.  

You are going on a tangent.  The trend is clear. ETFs are the future. 

[Deleted User]

Helpful links about ETFs and their UK uptake:

https://www.ft.com/content/d9eec772-cbf2-47a5-a303-39bedb551c7a
https://www.etfstream.com/news/education-is-biggest-barrier-to-uk-investor-etf-uptake-survey-finds/

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/3064821/investment-trends-factors-stopping-uptake-etfs-uk-ifas

IFAs like active funds. Best ETFs tend to be passive. Hence the prejudice. 

dunstonh

There are no issues with “certain ETFs”. 

You need to learn about them then as its clear you dont understand them.

IFAs like active funds. Best ETFs tend to be passive. Hence the prejudice. 

You are not in this country and don't even know what an IFA does.   Your regular anti-IFA rants show your prejudice.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

There are no issues with “certain ETFs”. 

You need to learn about them then as its clear you dont understand them.

IFAs like active funds. Best ETFs tend to be passive. Hence the prejudice. 

You are not in this country and don't even know what an IFA does.   Your regular anti-IFA rants show your prejudice.

You should address your claims of bloody foreigners not knowing anything to this guy.  I am merely summarizing his article https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/author/7150e705-0ca5-4862-b9d8-c5fb9dca1f5c/tom-eckett

Albermarle

For a £100K pension pot invested in ETF's

Vanguard platform charge - £150 pa Vanguard ETF's only- £7.50 per live trade- free for bulk trades ( not live pricing)
Aj Bell                                - £120pa full range of ETF's £10 per live trade - regular investing , not live pricing £1.50
Fidelity                               - £45 pa full range of ETF's £10 per live trade - Regular investing , not live pricing

The latter two regularly offer cashback for pension transfers, but I do not think Vanguard do. Typically would be £150 to £200 for a £100K pot

bostonerimus

Once again a thread descends into point making and navel gazing. As long as you have a sensible mainstream platform and a simple sensible approach to investing you will be ok. There are an almost infinite number of ways to skin an investment cat.

dunstonh

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

There are no issues with “certain ETFs”. 

You need to learn about them then as its clear you dont understand them.

IFAs like active funds. Best ETFs tend to be passive. Hence the prejudice. 

You are not in this country and don't even know what an IFA does.   Your regular anti-IFA rants show your prejudice.

You should address your claims of bloody foreigners not knowing anything to this guy.  I am merely summarizing his article https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/author/7150e705-0ca5-4862-b9d8-c5fb9dca1f5c/tom-eckett

Perhaps you shouldn't rely on incorrect articles then.

The actual position is that ETFs have always been unbundled, but OEICs only become unbundled in 2012 (in readiness of the changes that required them to be from 1st January 2013).    

When OEICs were bundled you wouldn't have found an OEIC tracker that was cheaper. 
However, since unbundling, OEICs are now comparable or cheaper.  e.g.  HSBC and Fidelity trackers at 0.06% pa. OCF.  Vanguard are not as competitive on OEIC trackers in the UK with 0.10-0.15% being commonplace.   However, the prices have been falling over the years.  So, I wouldn't be surprised to see them align with Fidelity and HSBC in due course.  L&G and ishares (the other popular OEIC trackers) are similar in price to Vanguard.