Shepherds Friendly £100pm and ISA allowance

masonic

I don't know whether or not ad hoc transfers could be substituted for a regular payment instruction, but what's done is done.

You will be able to cash in because it is a requirement for an ISA. However, this may be subject to a Market Value Reduction to protect the interests of other investors in the fund.

nottsphil

Well all that's done is that I've agreed to have £30 direct debits taken starting from the 16th. But, I haven't acted on any of the emails yet, and presumably not doing so will nullify the application. But do I want to do that? This product has the option to pause subscriptions (although not in the first year for cashback purposes). 

nottsphil

I can't seem to edit this in, it's from Topcashback's email yesterday.

masonic

If you can pause the payments then you'll be able to limit your exposure to 12 x £30. To get the cashback, you'll need to leave your DD in place and as you say you can't pause in the first 12 months, so substituting some of the monthly payments for ISA transfers wouldn't have been viable.

nottsphil

I'm not sure that all 12 payments have to be in the form of direct debits to yield the cashback, but this is now academic as I decided to confirm the commitment at the lowest level. I did this because there was no mention of MVR in their blurb.

masonic

MVR is not part of the costs, it will be covered in the general terms. It is mentioned in the second screenshot you posted earlier in the thread.

nottsphil

masonic said:

MVR is not part of the costs, it will be covered in the general terms. It is mentioned in the second screenshot you posted earlier in the thread.

It's actually mentioned on the third screenshot,  just three posts above yours on this page. Even then, I think it's saying implementation would only arise if investment conditions dictated.

masonic

nottsphil said:

masonic said:

MVR is not part of the costs, it will be covered in the general terms. It is mentioned in the second screenshot you posted earlier in the thread.

It's actually mentioned on the third screenshot,  just three posts above yours on this page. Even then, I think it's saying implementation would only arise if investment conditions dictated.

Forgive me for not going back through the previous page of the discussion to check for additional screenshots. It doesn't seem worth bickering about though.

It is applied if investments have fallen in value, to protect the interests of the ongoing investors.