Dividends on funds

EthicsGradient

I believe the differences in the way the acc and inc dividends grow is purely due to how the acc units compound their growth. We have the income unit dividends:

4.810702 4/25

4.6714 4/24

3.918366 4/23

3.3474 4/22

2.7865 4/21

and the reinvestment values

241.3149

232.6234

209.2752

218.9151

205.6917

You can work out the ratio of one year's income dividend compared to the previous, and you get

1.02982018238644 4/25

1.19218061814542 4/24

1.17056999462269 4/23

1.20129194329804 4/22

So the 4/22 inc dividend was 1.2013 time the 4/21, and so on. But to get how the acc dividends grow, you multiply each of those inc ratios by (prev income+prev reinvestment value)/prev reinvestment value, each time. That gives you

1.05050039770442

1.21450242216233

1.18846901575006

1.21756581336669

which is extremely close, each year, to the growth in the acc dividend:

1.05054248434972

1.2145616692043

1.18843164627646

1.21756598059213

This is, I think, showing how the reinvested dividend grows the dividend by a little more each year.

(I have no idea why those figures are getting justified to the right-hand edge - when I was entering them, they were on the left. If there's a guide to tables on this board, I may be able to make them more readable)

Eco_Miser

tigerspill said:

GeoffTF said:

tigerspill said:

I was able to find details under "Corporate Actions" as suggested above.  But can't find similar details anywhere on the iWeb site.

Try looking under Dividend History which is under Valuation and Statements. If there is an entry for your dividend, the value of the dividend should be underlined. (The underlining may be invisible.) Click on the link. If there is no entry under Dividend History, I can only suggest that you ask customer services.

Thanks.  This is where I looked but It just says "You have no dividends to view for this account over this period."
I will, as you say, contact customer services.

The default period is the current month. Have you adjusted to period to cover the full time you have held these units?

GeoffTF

EthicsGradient said:

You can work out the ratio of one year's income dividend compared to the previous, and you get

You evidently mean, for the income shares, divide each year's dividend per share by the dividend per share for the previous year. I get the same result.

EthicsGradient said:

But to get how the acc dividends grow, you multiply each of those inc ratios by (prev income+prev reinvestment value)/prev reinvestment value, each time.

I am totally baffled by this. Does "each of these income ratios" mean the ratios that we have already calculated for the income shares, or do we carry out the same calculation for the accumulation shares? What is "prev income"? What is "prev reinvestment value"?

As far as the formatting is concerned, I expect that you have pasted in formatting from another source. I always paste text into a text editor that strips out formatting, and then copy and paste the result from the text editor.

(Terminology is another source of confusion here. Unit Trusts are denominated in units. OEICs are companies and denominated in shares. VLS80 pays dividends rather than income.)

masonic

I'm not really sure where the confusion is arising here, or where the BoE base rate comes into it.

If you have Acc and Inc classes of the same fund, which pays dividend income, over time the two would be expected to diverge, such that the income received by the investor who reinvests dividends would stay the same. In the Acc case, the dividends are being reinvested internally, leading to inflation of the share price, whereas in the Inc case, the dividends are buying more shares, leading to inflation of the shares owned. Both cases hold the same underlying company shares (and bonds). The dividend per share in the fund (in pence) will therefore be different (because the number of shares in each holding is different). In theory dividing by the share price to get the dividend as a percentage would bring the two back into line, but in practice the dividends are reinvested at different times and different proportions of the underlying holdings will be eligible for the next dividend in the two cases, so a small discrepancy would be expected.

In the example posted upthread, there was around a 2% dividend, for which income shares received an extra 2% (a 0.04% greater return). This could simply be explained by reinvestment of income on a different schedule to the payment date and subsequent price movements within the underlying assets. It is unlikely there would be greater transaction costs in the Acc share class, because the reinvested dividend income would simply be combined with the transactions required by net inflows or outflows on that day. Likewise for the proportion of Inc dividends that are manually reinvested. Though swing-pricing, if being used, may apply to the unit creating Inc case.

GeoffTF

masonic said:

I'm not really sure where the confusion is arising here, or where the BoE base rate comes into it.

If you have Acc and Inc classes of the same fund, which pays dividend income, over time the two would be expected to diverge, such that the income received by the investor who reinvests dividends would stay the same. In the Acc case, the dividends are being reinvested internally, leading to inflation of the share price, whereas in the Inc case, the dividends are buying more shares, leading to inflation of the shares owned. Both cases hold the same underlying company shares (and bonds). The dividend per share in the fund (in pence) will therefore be different (because the number of shares in each holding is different). In theory dividing by the share price to get the dividend as a percentage would bring the two back into line, but in practice the dividends are reinvested at different times and different proportions of the underlying holdings will be eligible for the next dividend in the two cases, so a small discrepancy would be expected.

In the example posted upthread, there was around a 2% dividend, for which income shares received an extra 2% (a 0.04% greater return). This could simply be explained by reinvestment of income on a different schedule to the payment date and subsequent price movements within the underlying assets. It is unlikely there would be greater transaction costs in the Acc share class, because the reinvested dividend income would simply be combined with the transactions required by net inflows or outflows on that day. Likewise for the proportion of Inc dividends that are manually reinvested. Though swing-pricing, if being used, may apply to the unit creating Inc case.

For income shares, the dividend is the sum of money received, and we declare that to HMRC. For accumulation shares the dividend that we have to use in our CGT calculation does not appear to be the same as the dividend received for an investment in the income shares with the same valuation at the ex-dividend date (according to Fidelity's numbers). We are trying to understand why.

Consider the income shares. One possibility is that any payments received by the income shares are put on deposit until the payment date. If that happens, interest will accrue on that money and it should be added to the dividend. The BoE Base Rate gives an indiction of how much would be added. Another possibility is that there is one underlying accumulation fund for both the income and the accumulation shares. In that case, shares in the underlying fund would be sold to pay the dividends for the income shares.

Consider the accumulation shares. Again, the underlying fund could be distributing or accumulating.

We are trying to get some clues from Fidelity's numbers as to the what is happening here (with regard to how the fund works and/or HMRC rules). EthicsGradient seems to have found something interesting, but his calculation is not clear to me.

tigerspill

Eco_Miser said:

tigerspill said:

GeoffTF said:

tigerspill said:

I was able to find details under "Corporate Actions" as suggested above.  But can't find similar details anywhere on the iWeb site.

Try looking under Dividend History which is under Valuation and Statements. If there is an entry for your dividend, the value of the dividend should be underlined. (The underlining may be invisible.) Click on the link. If there is no entry under Dividend History, I can only suggest that you ask customer services.

Thanks.  This is where I looked but It just says "You have no dividends to view for this account over this period."
I will, as you say, contact customer services.

The default period is the current month. Have you adjusted to period to cover the full time you have held these units?

Yea, I adjusted to cover numerous periods over multiple years and nothing showed up.

masonic

GeoffTF said:

masonic said:

I'm not really sure where the confusion is arising here, or where the BoE base rate comes into it.

If you have Acc and Inc classes of the same fund, which pays dividend income, over time the two would be expected to diverge, such that the income received by the investor who reinvests dividends would stay the same. In the Acc case, the dividends are being reinvested internally, leading to inflation of the share price, whereas in the Inc case, the dividends are buying more shares, leading to inflation of the shares owned. Both cases hold the same underlying company shares (and bonds). The dividend per share in the fund (in pence) will therefore be different (because the number of shares in each holding is different). In theory dividing by the share price to get the dividend as a percentage would bring the two back into line, but in practice the dividends are reinvested at different times and different proportions of the underlying holdings will be eligible for the next dividend in the two cases, so a small discrepancy would be expected.

In the example posted upthread, there was around a 2% dividend, for which income shares received an extra 2% (a 0.04% greater return). This could simply be explained by reinvestment of income on a different schedule to the payment date and subsequent price movements within the underlying assets. It is unlikely there would be greater transaction costs in the Acc share class, because the reinvested dividend income would simply be combined with the transactions required by net inflows or outflows on that day. Likewise for the proportion of Inc dividends that are manually reinvested. Though swing-pricing, if being used, may apply to the unit creating Inc case.

For income shares, the dividend is the sum of money received, and we declare that to HMRC. For accumulation shares the dividend that we have to use in our CGT calculation does not appear to be the same as the dividend received for an investment in the income shares with the same valuation at the ex-dividend date (according to Fidelity's numbers). We are trying to understand why.

Consider the income shares. One possibility is that any payments received by the income shares are put on deposit until the payment date. If that happens, interest will accrue on that money and it should be added to the dividend. The BoE Base Rate gives an indiction of how much would be added. Another possibility is that there is one underlying accumulation fund for both the income and the accumulation shares. In that case, shares in the underlying fund would be sold to pay the dividends for the income shares.

Consider the accumulation shares. Again, the underlying fund could be distributing or accumulating.

We are trying to get some clues from Fidelity's numbers as to the what is happening here (with regard to how the fund works and/or HMRC rules). EthicsGradient seems to have found something interesting, but his calculation is not clear to me.

Ok, I see why the BoE base rate was brought into it now. For VLS 80, the annual report suggests £329k bank and other interest was earned in the year to 31 March 2025 and over the year the fund held an average of about £12bn assets. A 2% dividend would be in the region of £240m, let's say an average of £120m was being held over the year (either within underlying funds or the fund of funds itself) before being distributed in the Inc class. If that was earning 4% interest, it would amount to about £4.8m. Which does happen to be an extra 0.04% return. It is a lot more than the declared £329k. So perhaps it was earning interest in the underlying funds, which then paid out a larger dividend to the fund of funds. But then again, going back to prior years this explanation cannot rationalise the earlier differences, so it looks coincidental.

There are plenty of confounding factors that could lead to a different outcome, but the main one for me is the timing of the reinvestment and associated short term performance of the underlying assets. This will have a knock-on effect, since when you are comparing two cases with an equal value holding today, you are implicitly reinvesting past dividends in the Inc share class. You might get a different result if you start in 2018 with an equal value and work forward, reinvesting in the Inc case.

From what I can surmise from @EthicsGradient 's post above, he's saying that each year the Acc fund reinvests dividends and therefore holds more underlying assets with which to generate future dividends (the miracle of compound interest) and that this is the effect. Which makes perfect sense and should be expected. But I don't think it explains the discrepancy between the income thrown off by an equivalent value of shares in each class.

EthicsGradient

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

The Vanguard Developed World ex UK figure for income units at FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Income is £7.6866 (paid on 31/12/25), and that's what I got on ii, rounded down to the penny.

Using that number, I am only 3p out on a £10K dividend. Vanguard has either corrected that number or I made a mistake when I did the calculation several weeks ago. The number on the public website has been wrong twice in the past, but was corrected when I complained about it. I had assumed that the dividends were the same for both the income and accumulation units. I do not have any accumulating open ended funds, so I do not know what information the Vanguard and iWeb platforms provide for the dividends. Nonetheless, looking under Corporate Actions for Vanguard and Dividends for iWeb is worth trying.

Monetary amounts for income and accumulation units may start out the same when a fund is launched, but then diverge as the accumulation price increases more - it's the yield (ie the dividend divided by the current unit price) that should be the same for each type. So, for LS80, we see (on the non-authoritative Fidelity site, admittedly), for the latest dividends:
Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund A Inc Dividends | GB00B4KWNF91 | Fidelity 4.810702
Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund A Acc Dividends | GB00B4PQW151 | Fidelity 5.974225

Yes, that makes sense. More accurately, I had assumed that the dividends for £100K invested in the income and accumulation units at the ex-dividend date would be the same. Let's test that hypothesis with Fidelity's data.

For the income shares, per share dividend = 4.810702 and reinvestment price = 241.3149.

Number of shares for £100K = 100,000 / 241.3149 = 414.396293.

Dividend = £4.810702 * 414.396293 = £1,993.54.

For the accumulation shares, per share dividend = 5.974225 and reinvestment price = 305.6381.

Number of shares for £100K = 100,000 / 305.6381 = 327.184340.

Dividend = £5.974225 * 327.184340 = £1,954.67.

That suggests that the income units received about 2% more dividend income than the accumulation units. Perhaps that reflects the reinvestment costs. It would be interesting to know what the calculation reveals for the other entries in Fidelity's table.

I think that we shouldn't be looking at the 2025 dividend values and the 2025 reinvestment prices; we should be comparing what dividend we'd get in 2025 if we (re)invested at the 2024 price, ie over the year we hold it. And for the recent years, that works out the same for Inc and Acc.
Inc:
100,000 / 232.6234 * 4.810702 = £2,068.02 (2024 reinvestment price, 2025 div)
100,000 / 209.2752 * 4.6714 = £2,232.18 (2023 reinvestment price, 2024 div)
100,000 / 218.9151 * 3.918366 = £1,789.90 (2022 reinvestment price, 2023 div)
100,000 / 205.6917 * 3.3474 = £1,627.39 (2021 reinvestment price, 2022 div)

Acc:
100,000 / 288.8716 * 5.974225 = £2,068.13 (2024 reinvestment price, 2025 div)
100,000 / 254.7617 * 5.6868 = £2,232.20 (2023 reinvestment price, 2024 div)
100,000 / 261.5986 * 4.682183 = £1,789.83 (2022 reinvestment price, 2023 div)
100,000 / 242.0944 * 3.9398 = £1,627.38 (2021 reinvestment price, 2022 div)

There's no 2020 figure given by Fidelity for Acc, and the 2022 and 2021 Inc figures appear in the wrong order in their table; we can do one more year like this, with 2018 and 2019 figures available for both:
Inc:
100,000 / 164.4451 * 3.22933 = £1,963.77
Acc:
100,000 / 183.3745 * 3.601329 = £1,963.92

All match to within a few pence.

And to explain my earlier post, to which you replied:
"I am totally baffled by this. Does "each of these income ratios" mean the ratios that we have already calculated for the income shares, or do we carry out the same calculation for the accumulation shares? What is "prev income"? What is "prev reinvestment value"?"

"Prev" stood for "the previous year's". To try and be as unambiguous as possible (I use "unit", because it's still unambiguous):

to get how the acc unit dividends grow, you multiply each of those ratios for income units by (previous year's income unit dividend + previous year's income unit reinvestment value)/previous year's income unit reinvestment value

I believe that calculation and the one in this post are fundamentally expressing the same thing, ie that each year, the reinvestment that happens with acc units means an extra growth in dividends.

GeoffTF

EthicsGradient said:

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

The Vanguard Developed World ex UK figure for income units at FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Income is £7.6866 (paid on 31/12/25), and that's what I got on ii, rounded down to the penny.

Using that number, I am only 3p out on a £10K dividend. Vanguard has either corrected that number or I made a mistake when I did the calculation several weeks ago. The number on the public website has been wrong twice in the past, but was corrected when I complained about it. I had assumed that the dividends were the same for both the income and accumulation units. I do not have any accumulating open ended funds, so I do not know what information the Vanguard and iWeb platforms provide for the dividends. Nonetheless, looking under Corporate Actions for Vanguard and Dividends for iWeb is worth trying.

Monetary amounts for income and accumulation units may start out the same when a fund is launched, but then diverge as the accumulation price increases more - it's the yield (ie the dividend divided by the current unit price) that should be the same for each type. So, for LS80, we see (on the non-authoritative Fidelity site, admittedly), for the latest dividends:
Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund A Inc Dividends | GB00B4KWNF91 | Fidelity 4.810702
Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund A Acc Dividends | GB00B4PQW151 | Fidelity 5.974225

Yes, that makes sense. More accurately, I had assumed that the dividends for £100K invested in the income and accumulation units at the ex-dividend date would be the same. Let's test that hypothesis with Fidelity's data.

For the income shares, per share dividend = 4.810702 and reinvestment price = 241.3149.

Number of shares for £100K = 100,000 / 241.3149 = 414.396293.

Dividend = £4.810702 * 414.396293 = £1,993.54.

For the accumulation shares, per share dividend = 5.974225 and reinvestment price = 305.6381.

Number of shares for £100K = 100,000 / 305.6381 = 327.184340.

Dividend = £5.974225 * 327.184340 = £1,954.67.

That suggests that the income units received about 2% more dividend income than the accumulation units. Perhaps that reflects the reinvestment costs. It would be interesting to know what the calculation reveals for the other entries in Fidelity's table.

I think that we shouldn't be looking at the 2025 dividend values and the 2025 reinvestment prices; we should be comparing what dividend we'd get in 2025 if we (re)invested at the 2024 price, ie over the year we hold it. And for the recent years, that works out the same for Inc and Acc.
Inc:
100,000 / 232.6234 * 4.810702 = £2,068.02 (2024 reinvestment price, 2025 div)
100,000 / 209.2752 * 4.6714 = £2,232.18 (2023 reinvestment price, 2024 div)
100,000 / 218.9151 * 3.918366 = £1,789.90 (2022 reinvestment price, 2023 div)
100,000 / 205.6917 * 3.3474 = £1,627.39 (2021 reinvestment price, 2022 div)

Acc:
100,000 / 288.8716 * 5.974225 = £2,068.13 (2024 reinvestment price, 2025 div)
100,000 / 254.7617 * 5.6868 = £2,232.20 (2023 reinvestment price, 2024 div)
100,000 / 261.5986 * 4.682183 = £1,789.83 (2022 reinvestment price, 2023 div)
100,000 / 242.0944 * 3.9398 = £1,627.38 (2021 reinvestment price, 2022 div)

There's no 2020 figure given by Fidelity for Acc, and the 2022 and 2021 Inc figures appear in the wrong order in their table; we can do one more year like this, with 2018 and 2019 figures available for both:
Inc:
100,000 / 164.4451 * 3.22933 = £1,963.77
Acc:
100,000 / 183.3745 * 3.601329 = £1,963.92

All match to within a few pence.

My spreadsheet agrees with your numbers. Nonetheless, this does not make sense. I have checked that Fidelity's "Reinvestment Price" is the price of the fund concerned at the ex-dividend date shown on the same row in Fidelity's table. We are expected to believe that for both the income and accumulation shares, we calculate the number of shares that we held on the previous ex-dividend date and multiply it by the dividend rate for this ex-dividend date to get the dividend for this ex-dividend date. I believe that is nonsense. (I have successfully used Vanguard's dividend per share and Equalisation per Group 2 share to calculate my dividend and Equalisation in advance of receiving my tax certificate on more than one occasion.) I expect that Fidelity has messed up its tables. Searching for "OEIC reinvestment price" yields only a few Fidelity hits and the usual nonsense from Google AI.

It believe my original assumption was correct. We can calculate the dividends for both share classes by multiplying the number of shares held on the ex-dividend date by the dividend rate for that date. The OP should be able to check that for the accumulating funds that he holds on Vanguard's platform.

If I am correct, we have solved the OP's problem. His notional dividend should be the capital value of the accumulating fund on the ex-dividend date, divided by the share price of the corresponding income fund on that date, and multiplied by the dividend per share for the income units for that date. It should not matter if he is a few pence out for his purpose of deciding how much to sell to fill his CGT allowance.

EthicsGradient

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

GeoffTF said:

EthicsGradient said:

The Vanguard Developed World ex UK figure for income units at FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Income is £7.6866 (paid on 31/12/25), and that's what I got on ii, rounded down to the penny.

Using that number, I am only 3p out on a £10K dividend. Vanguard has either corrected that number or I made a mistake when I did the calculation several weeks ago. The number on the public website has been wrong twice in the past, but was corrected when I complained about it. I had assumed that the dividends were the same for both the income and accumulation units. I do not have any accumulating open ended funds, so I do not know what information the Vanguard and iWeb platforms provide for the dividends. Nonetheless, looking under Corporate Actions for Vanguard and Dividends for iWeb is worth trying.

Monetary amounts for income and accumulation units may start out the same when a fund is launched, but then diverge as the accumulation price increases more - it's the yield (ie the dividend divided by the current unit price) that should be the same for each type. So, for LS80, we see (on the non-authoritative Fidelity site, admittedly), for the latest dividends:
Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund A Inc Dividends | GB00B4KWNF91 | Fidelity 4.810702
Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund A Acc Dividends | GB00B4PQW151 | Fidelity 5.974225

Yes, that makes sense. More accurately, I had assumed that the dividends for £100K invested in the income and accumulation units at the ex-dividend date would be the same. Let's test that hypothesis with Fidelity's data.

For the income shares, per share dividend = 4.810702 and reinvestment price = 241.3149.

Number of shares for £100K = 100,000 / 241.3149 = 414.396293.

Dividend = £4.810702 * 414.396293 = £1,993.54.

For the accumulation shares, per share dividend = 5.974225 and reinvestment price = 305.6381.

Number of shares for £100K = 100,000 / 305.6381 = 327.184340.

Dividend = £5.974225 * 327.184340 = £1,954.67.

That suggests that the income units received about 2% more dividend income than the accumulation units. Perhaps that reflects the reinvestment costs. It would be interesting to know what the calculation reveals for the other entries in Fidelity's table.

I think that we shouldn't be looking at the 2025 dividend values and the 2025 reinvestment prices; we should be comparing what dividend we'd get in 2025 if we (re)invested at the 2024 price, ie over the year we hold it. And for the recent years, that works out the same for Inc and Acc.
Inc:
100,000 / 232.6234 * 4.810702 = £2,068.02 (2024 reinvestment price, 2025 div)
100,000 / 209.2752 * 4.6714 = £2,232.18 (2023 reinvestment price, 2024 div)
100,000 / 218.9151 * 3.918366 = £1,789.90 (2022 reinvestment price, 2023 div)
100,000 / 205.6917 * 3.3474 = £1,627.39 (2021 reinvestment price, 2022 div)

Acc:
100,000 / 288.8716 * 5.974225 = £2,068.13 (2024 reinvestment price, 2025 div)
100,000 / 254.7617 * 5.6868 = £2,232.20 (2023 reinvestment price, 2024 div)
100,000 / 261.5986 * 4.682183 = £1,789.83 (2022 reinvestment price, 2023 div)
100,000 / 242.0944 * 3.9398 = £1,627.38 (2021 reinvestment price, 2022 div)

There's no 2020 figure given by Fidelity for Acc, and the 2022 and 2021 Inc figures appear in the wrong order in their table; we can do one more year like this, with 2018 and 2019 figures available for both:
Inc:
100,000 / 164.4451 * 3.22933 = £1,963.77
Acc:
100,000 / 183.3745 * 3.601329 = £1,963.92

All match to within a few pence.

My spreadsheet agrees with your numbers. Nonetheless, this does not make sense. I have checked that Fidelity's "Reinvestment Price" is the price of the fund concerned at the ex-dividend date shown on the same row in Fidelity's table. We are expected to believe that for both the income and accumulation shares, we calculate the number of shares that we held on the previous ex-dividend date and multiply it by the dividend rate for this ex-dividend date to get the dividend for this ex-dividend date. I believe that is nonsense. (I have successfully used Vanguard's dividend per share and Equalisation per Group 2 share to calculate my dividend and Equalisation in advance of receiving my tax certificate on more than one occasion.) I expect that Fidelity has messed up its tables. Searching for "OEIC reinvestment price" yields only a few Fidelity hits and the usual nonsense from Google AI.

It believe my original assumption was correct. We can calculate the dividends for both share classes by multiplying the number of shares held on the ex-dividend date by the dividend rate for that date. The OP should be able to check that for the accumulating funds that he holds on Vanguard's platform.

If I am correct, we have solved the OP's problem. His notional dividend should be the capital value of the accumulating fund on the ex-dividend date, divided by the share price of the corresponding income fund on that date, and multiplied by the dividend per share for the income units for that date. It should not matter if he is a few pence out for his purpose of deciding how much to sell to fill his CGT allowance.

"We are expected to believe that for both the income and accumulation shares, we calculate the number of shares that we held on the previous ex-dividend date and multiply it by the dividend rate for this ex-dividend date to get the dividend for this ex-dividend date."

Well, yes, if you don't buy any more shares in the intervening year, then that does work.

But your earlier calculation of "100,000 / 2025 reinvestment price * 2025 dividend" is meaningless. 100,000 / 2025 reinvestment price tells you how many shares a new £100,000 gets you in 2025. But multiplying that by the 2025 dividend tells you nothing - that dividend is now "ex", and you won't get any of it for your £100,000 investment. The only relation between 2025 reinvestment price and 2025 dividend is "how many new shares would I get if I reinvested the dividend at once?"

My calculation is "if I invested £100,000 in April 2024, what would be the dividend (cash for income shares, automatically reinvested for accumulation shares) that I'd get in 2025?" And the answer is the same in each case.

What do you think is wrong with the Fidelity tables? They work, as I've shown.

"We can calculate the dividends for both share classes by multiplying the number of shares held on the ex-dividend date by the dividend rate for that date."

But you never used a figure of "the number of shares held on the ex-dividend date". 

Anyway, my point is that there's no need to worry about interest rates; the Fidelity figures are consistent, and explained satisfactorily.

I think the questions here are:
Does any web page publish the dividend rates for accumulation shares, apart from Fidelity? No one has mentioned anywhere else, so far.

Do we trust Fidelity to always give the dividend rate for accumulation shares correctly when Vanguard hasn't stated it publicly, and when platforms haven't yet given customers the end-of-tax-year figures? I think I've seen the Fidelity website be a little out, sometimes, for some other shares, but it may well be the only source we can use - I haven't checked that their reinvestment prices are the ex-dividend prices for both income and accumulation shares, but if you have, then it does look like they're consistent (we know Fidelity has got the 2025 income share dividend right),