Do (SJP) funds performance reports include all fees?

Prism

max888 said:

I have this graph for the same fund (+160% in latest 10yrs)



I was comparing SJP to my current Vanguard investments.
On Vanguard UK, the global equities funds I would have considered are:
- FTSE all world (10yrs: +93%)
- Life strategy 100% eq. (10yrs: +132%)

Both performed less than the SJP fund. 

Vanguard have much lower fees, but if SJP has products which could offer overall better returns on the long term, why should I be fixated on the fees? Or am I missing additional hidden costs in SJP, as per my initial question?

The Vanguard FTSE all world fund has produced a return of 161% over the last 10 years. I think you may be looking at the returns for NAV that Vanguard provide in Dollars (93%).

Life Strategy has not performed as well.

Also, I don't believe that the fund fees from SJP include the 5% that you need to pay up front, that you never get back. You are 5% down before you start which makes the rest of the journey all that harder. You don't get to pick your own funds so only a small amount would have been in that well performing one.

dunstonh

I was comparing SJP to my current Vanguard investments.
On Vanguard UK, the global equities funds I would have considered are:
- FTSE all world (10yrs: +93%)
- Life strategy 100% eq. (10yrs: +132%)

Vanguard don't have the best trackers in many areas (no fund house is best in all)
VLS100 is a managed global equity fund with home bias.

max888

Prism
The Vanguard FTSE all world fund has produced a return of 161% over the last 10 years. I think you may be looking at the returns for NAV that Vanguard provide in Dollars (93%).

...

Also, I don't believe that the fund fees from SJP include the 5% that you need to pay up front

Yes I quoted the NAV returns (but not too sure what it represents exactly)
Wouldn't it represent the return I'd get (excluding taxes?). what does NAV not include? the dividends?
Vanguard page says
"Basis of fund performance NAV to NAV, net of expenses, with gross income reinvested"
How is this different from the performance calculation on trustnet.com for SJP?

On entry fees: they are not included, but the FA proposal doesn't have entry fees, they have early exit fees (of 6% to 1% in years 1 to 6). This is the main reason putting me off from the investment, at the moment.

Linton

It would appear that the OPs fund is XJP Global Value since there is no other fund from SJP with anything like that high a performance.  I never thought I would be saying this but SJP Global Value does look like a reasonably good fund.  




The fund is positioned midway between a global tracker and a global value tracker and  could be useful for investors looking to dampen down over-dependence on Growth.  The quoted charges for the L Class are 1.69% and for the M Class 1.19%.  The latter has only been around for less than 3 years so medium/long term performance is not available.

To answer the OPs initial question It would be safe to say that any costs beyond the published fund management charge are not included in the performance data.

Prism

max888 said:

Prism
The Vanguard FTSE all world fund has produced a return of 161% over the last 10 years. I think you may be looking at the returns for NAV that Vanguard provide in Dollars (93%).

...

Also, I don't believe that the fund fees from SJP include the 5% that you need to pay up front

Yes I quoted the NAV returns (but not too sure what it represents exactly)
Wouldn't it represent the return I'd get (excluding taxes?). what does NAV not include? the dividends?
Vanguard page says
"Basis of fund performance NAV to NAV, net of expenses, with gross income reinvested"
How is this different from the performance calculation on trustnet.com for SJP?

On entry fees: they are not included, but the FA proposal doesn't have entry fees, they have early exit fees (of 6% to 1% in years 1 to 6). This is the main reason putting me off from the investment, at the moment.

The NAV is in USD whereas Trustnet converts everything to GBP. That is what makes the difference. You should stick to one currency for comparisions or its meaningless. I would use Trustnet for both.

What they have done is hidden those entry fees by showing you the average over the first six years. This cannot be prepresented on the Trustnet chart as it is unique per investor and when they first invest. You can get a feeling for the effect of this by looking at the bid/offer prices in your first link. You will pay the offer price (currently 375) but only get the value of the bid price (currently 356). That is your initial charge. The Trustnet stats and charts ignore the offer price and only look at the changaes to the bid price. An investor cannot avoid it though.

dunstonh

Yes I quoted the NAV returns (but not too sure what it represents exactly)
Wouldn't it represent the return I'd get (excluding taxes?). what does NAV not include? the dividends?

Most people use UT/OEICs and wouldn't have to worry about the NAV.  If you start playing with other investment universes then it becomes more complicated.     SJP use life & pension funds rather than UT/OEICs, which is the old fashioned way.  

 I never thought I would be saying this but SJP Global Value does look like a reasonably good fund.  

It had a boost from 2021 onwards as the markets switched to favour the assets it invested in.  If you look at the periods before that, it is not so favourable.

If the OP is wedded to a managed fund solution that is similar but from the whole of market then Royal London Global Equity Select with fund charges of 0.71% compared to 1.97% for SJP (just picking as an example and not a recommendation).   Adding a platform charge of 0.25% to RL gives you 0.96%.  Half the cost.   If the OP still wants advice then add 0.50% for IFA and its still 1.46% vs 1.97%.    (I have used the SJP pension fund version in my figures based on post #1)

Linton

dunstonh said:

Yes I quoted the NAV returns (but not too sure what it represents exactly)
Wouldn't it represent the return I'd get (excluding taxes?). what does NAV not include? the dividends?

Most people use UT/OEICs and wouldn't have to worry about the NAV.  If you start playing with other investment universes then it becomes more complicated.     SJP use life & pension funds rather than UT/OEICs, which is the old fashioned way.  

 I never thought I would be saying this but SJP Global Value does look like a reasonably good fund.  

It had a boost from 2021 onwards as the markets switched to favour the assets it invested in.  If you look at the periods before that, it is not so favourable.

If the OP is wedded to a managed fund solution that is similar but from the whole of market then Royal London Global Equity Select with fund charges of 0.71% compared to 1.97% for SJP (just picking as an example and not a recommendation).   Adding a platform charge of 0.25% to RL gives you 0.96%.  Half the cost.   If the OP still wants advice then add 0.50% for IFA and its still 1.46% vs 1.97%.    (I have used the SJP pension fund version in my figures based on post #1)

Yes - I was looking at it as a "Value" oriented global fund which could be compared with a balance of global and global value trackers.  "Growth" shares did not show so much growth during Covid.

Morningstar shows RL Global Equity Select as 28% Value, 30% Blend and 42% growth compared with SJP Global Value's 38% Value, 47% Blend, and 15% Growth so rather different funds.

It depends on whether the OP actually wanted (or circumstances implies) a Value tilt.

Royal London Equity Select has wildly outperformed both global indices and SJP Global Value over the past 3-5 years.  I will need to investigate why.  It clearly isnt simply Value vs Growth.

dunstonh

It depends on whether the OP actually wanted (or circumstances implies) a Value tilt.

My gut tells me that the OP doesn't specifically have any method in mind and is focused purely on the end result.