Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • dc learning
    • By dc learning 11th May 18, 12:40 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 0Thanks
    dc learning
    Management & Advice for "legacy" investments when an IFA joins SJP?
    • #1
    • 11th May 18, 12:40 PM
    Management & Advice for "legacy" investments when an IFA joins SJP? 11th May 18 at 12:40 PM
    Hello - would appreciate thoughts and perspectives on this subject please and assessment outlined below.

    Our IFA has recently become a partner with SJP and I'm trying to understand and assess the longer term implications for ongoing management and advice for our funds which are still held outside of SJP. My assessment and understanding of this new situation is as follows:

    When joining SJP - the (ex-IFA) SJP Partner is no longer regulated to offer existing clients advice or recommendations on non-SJP products

    As part of the new relationships arrangement - our 'legacy funds' have been transferred to a company called Policy Services for on-going administration management while the SJP Partner is still our client facing 'advisor'

    All our investments still include trail commissions - and it is my understanding/assumption that this is now shared between Policy Services and SJP Partner for on-going client relationships. Policy Services provide our SJP partner with updated valuation reports for review conversations.

    My understanding/assumption is that trail commissions are payments for on-going portfolio reviews and advice/recommendations that are in best interests of the client
    It seems to me that when an IFA joins SJP - clients like us are put into what feels like a very ambiguous situation, for example:

    - Our advisor is no longer able to give any specific advice or recommendations on our portfolio
    - There is no direct contact between us and Policy Services
    - Our default position is to continue to have advisor reviews based on Policy Services valuation reports stating past/current value of investments - while our advisor is effectively constrained and not able to make/suggest any changes should they be appropriate now or in the future
    - The on-going charge to investments for trail commission continues - yet there is now a perceived/real reduction in client service under these new relationships
    - This is the new status quo arrangement - indefinitely - unless we make appropriate interventions
    Am guessing there may be others out there in a similar situation.

    Would appreciate any observations / challenges / suggestions on the above.
Page 1
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 11th May 18, 1:02 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #2
    • 11th May 18, 1:02 PM
    • #2
    • 11th May 18, 1:02 PM
    Management & Advice for "legacy" investments when an IFA joins SJP?
    A sell out who is interested in his own pocket.

    SJP is the most expensive distribution channel in the UK. Its products/funds are not that great. Although they do create some very glossy material that looks more professional than a IFA could do on their office printer.

    When joining SJP - the (ex-IFA) SJP Partner is no longer regulated to offer existing clients advice or recommendations on non-SJP products
    So, how on earth are they able to continue charging for ongoing advice services when they are not able to give ongoing advice.

    Do you like paying fees for nothing?

    All our investments still include trail commissions
    Unit Trust/OEICs had commission removed from them in 2013. In its place, explicit charging was used. So, its not commission any more. It is an actual fee that can be turned on or off. Life funds and some pension funds may have legacy renewal commission.

    Would appreciate any observations / challenges / suggestions on the above.
    Time for you to dump the now Sales Representative. No point paying fees for a sales rep who cant give advice on other products/funds and almost certainly will be looking to churn existing products into SJP products (which usually have a 5% initial charge).
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Aegis
    • By Aegis 11th May 18, 1:11 PM
    • 4,895 Posts
    • 3,109 Thanks
    Aegis
    • #3
    • 11th May 18, 1:11 PM
    • #3
    • 11th May 18, 1:11 PM
    So, how on earth are they able to continue charging for ongoing advice services when they are not able to give ongoing advice.

    Do you like paying fees for nothing?
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Taking it a step further, I think this is a completely unethical move, i.e. to transfer agency to a company that won't provide advice but to continue taking fees that were initially established for the sole purpose of paying for advice. How they get away with it is beyond me.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser
    Anything I say on the forum is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice. It is vitally important to do your own research before acting on information gathered from any users on this forum.
    • dc learning
    • By dc learning 11th May 18, 7:46 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    dc learning
    • #4
    • 11th May 18, 7:46 PM
    • #4
    • 11th May 18, 7:46 PM
    Thanks for points above - and I have a couple of further questions to get a better understanding and would appreciate the 'education/guidance'.

    Unit Trust/OEICs had commission removed from them in 2013. In its place, explicit charging was used. So, its not commission any more. It is an actual fee that can be turned on or off. Life funds and some pension funds may have legacy renewal commission.
    Re the above point - we have a mix of unit trusts, OEICs and life assurance policy/investment bonds.
    If a decision was made to turn off charges for OEICs and unit trusts - how would this be done and by whom?

    What is legacy renewal commission and how would we know if it is/has been applied post 2013 - assuming it was a requirement post 2013. Does the same principle of being able to turn off apply - or is it maybe a contractual obligation?

    I've also read about migrating to 'clean class' share types post RDR but not sure if this is appropriate or relevant - we have some funds that have particular share class types - one for example: Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Fund A share OEIC. How does someone determine whether it is relevant to them?

    Thanks.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 11th May 18, 8:52 PM
    • 1,826 Posts
    • 1,171 Thanks
    bostonerimus
    • #5
    • 11th May 18, 8:52 PM
    • #5
    • 11th May 18, 8:52 PM
    I would take this as an opportunity to move your portfolio to another IFA, or better still learn enough to DIY. Unfortunately having the IFA middleman between you and your money seems to make this into a non-trivial process.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 11th May 18, 11:56 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 11:56 PM
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 11:56 PM
    Re the above point - we have a mix of unit trusts, OEICs and life assurance policy/investment bonds.
    If a decision was made to turn off charges for OEICs and unit trusts - how would this be done and by whom?
    The investment bond commission was not required to be turned off. There may not be any. Investment bonds gave the choice to take an up front figure or pay it on drip. Typically the charges were the same to the policyholder either way. The initial documentation will confirm this. As would the suitability report.

    In respect of unit trust/OEICS, it was a regulatory change on ISAs, SIPPs and unwrapped holdings (not PPPs) held with platforms. If the adviser was providing an ongoing service they could ask you to sign a fee agreement and turn a fee on instead. However, it must be for a specific service. This is why its important that you dont end up paying for something you are not going to get.

    I've also read about migrating to 'clean class' share types post RDR but not sure if this is appropriate or relevant - we have some funds that have particular share class types - one for example: Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Fund A share OEIC. How does someone determine whether it is relevant to them?
    Class A is commission paying. If its held direct with Aberdeen then it wouldnt have been changed to non-commission paying. Its unusual for an IFA to have holdings direct with the fund house nowadays unless its small holdings (such children/grandchildren where small premium stuff is still an option). Most serious investor holdings are held on platforms as part of a portfolio of funds from different fund houses. e.g. you wouldnt have aberdeen emerging markets by itself. It may form x% of your portfolio with other funds filling the other sectors.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • dc learning
    • By dc learning 12th May 18, 10:50 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    dc learning
    • #7
    • 12th May 18, 10:50 AM
    • #7
    • 12th May 18, 10:50 AM
    It is my understanding there are on-going advisor fees on all funds - including bonds(based on original documentation). They all had an initial charge plus on-going advisor 0.5% - normal practice at the time I think as this spans 1997-2010.

    I do not believe the funds are held on any platform that I am aware of. They were all setup individually at different times spanning past 20 years.

    I've been spending a lot of time trying to get better understanding of overall portfolio ( performance over past horizon, asset allocation and diversification etc) which I have found very useful/educational. I retired recently and having this understanding as well as getting right oversight on 'legacy' portfolio is important as these funds are a very significant amount of our total assets. I have also very recently started to go down the DIY route with some new funds in the belief that an appropriate blend of passive/active is a best/appropriate strategy for the future.

    The overall 'legacy' portfolio has evolved and grown over time - its current content and % each fund represents based on a most recent valuation - is listed below. It is my assessment also that the overall equities content across total portfolio is approximately 82%, predominantly large-cap and reasonably well diversified while UK centric ( I played around with the Morningstar x-ray tool).

    The thoughts and questions triggered by above analysis and research include: taking holistic portfolio review, are improvements possible and if so what kind/type, consider potential need for risk re-balance recognising time has moved on, changing personal circumstances and risk tolerance, importance of both asset preservation, managing costs while having adequate/reasonable levels of future growth and so on.

    The key issue is therefore defining an appropriate/right course of action recognising current context and relationships - so any further suggestions/challenges to formulate thinking appreciated.

    TOTAL PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW - established over 20 years - with % each fund represents of total portfolio valuation
    Invesco Perpetual Pacific 4%
    Jupiter European Fund 10%
    Invesco Perpetual Global Equity 3%
    Fidelity Global Special Situations 4%
    Jupiter UK Growth 1%
    With Profits Life Bond 6%

    Jupiter UK Smaller companies 12%
    AXA Framlington Health Fund 4%
    Fidelity Multi Asset Open Growth 3%

    Fidelity South East Asia 3%
    Aberdeen Emerging Markets 4%
    Neptune China Fund 2%

    Jupiter Global Emerging Markets 3%
    M&G Recovery 3%

    Neptune US Opportunities 6%
    Ignis Argonaut Euro Alpha EU Select 1%
    Schroder Global Cities Real Estate 4%
    Schroder Income Maximiser 7%
    Blackrock Special Sits 4%
    AXA Framlington UK Select Opps 4%
    M&G Strategic Corporate Bond 4%
    M&G Gilt & Fixed Interest Income 3%
    M&G Global Basics Income 3%
    Ignis UK Property 3%
    Last edited by dc learning; 19-05-2018 at 7:19 AM.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 12:44 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #8
    • 12th May 18, 12:44 PM
    • #8
    • 12th May 18, 12:44 PM
    I do not believe the funds are held on any platform that I am aware of. They were all setup individually at different times spanning past 20 years.
    You would know if you had a platform as the statements come from them as a consolidated statement of the holdings on platform. If you were direct with fund house then you would still be on the old share classes and commission still being paid.

    The key issue is therefore defining an appropriate/right course of action recognising current context and relationships - so any further suggestions/challenges to formulate thinking appreciated.
    There really is just two viable options here. Either DIY and take it to a DIY platform or get an IFA.

    SJP should be off the table as an option given their high costs and lack of servicing and advice you will get an pre SJP assets. That was before you gave us the new information which indicates no rebalancing has taken place apart from perhaps when the new money was added.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 12th May 18, 2:09 PM
    • 1,826 Posts
    • 1,171 Thanks
    bostonerimus
    • #9
    • 12th May 18, 2:09 PM
    • #9
    • 12th May 18, 2:09 PM
    I think this is a blessing as it has made you evaluate the portfolio yourself.

    You say you are retired, don't mention any DB pensions and have a portfolio that is 82% equities. That is a very aggressive allocation for someone in retirement. Also I think you have at least 2 or 3 times too many funds in your portfolio.....24 is a bit ridiculous....any IFA that develops a portfolio with "Ignis Argonaut Euro Alpha EU Select 1%" in it is having a bit of a laugh.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 2:24 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    ny IFA that develops a portfolio with "Ignis Argonaut Euro Alpha EU Select 1%" in it is having a bit of a laugh.
    since launch 286.29%
    MSCI Europe ex UK TR 182.55%.

    So, its done much better.

    Since July 2009 when vanguard launched their tracker (which we know are your preferred options)

    argonaut 183.37%
    Vanguard 157.58%
    Benchmark 148.48%

    And finally from May 2010 to date

    Argonaut 109.93%
    Vanguard 104.78%
    Benchmark 97.98%

    Whilst the Argunaut fund is not a fund I would want now and the way the ex adviser has run the portfolio (or rather hasnt run it at all) is not ideal, the selection of that fund was not a bad one. It has beaten what would you have done. is that what you mean by having a laugh? He should have stuck with his 1997 fund selection for Europe but life funds tend to have a limited fund selection.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • greatkingrat
    • By greatkingrat 12th May 18, 2:38 PM
    • 97 Posts
    • 90 Thanks
    greatkingrat
    I think the point is that an allocation of 1% is too small to be worth bothering with, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the fund itself.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 3:10 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I think the point is that an allocation of 1% is too small to be worth bothering with, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the fund itself.
    Originally posted by greatkingrat
    Those percentages are not by product or event. They are a percentage of the total holdings. As that is the only bond, you would expect smaller allocations when comparing it to an overall portfolio (unless the bond value was higher than the ISAs/unwrapped but it looks like it was a about a third of the total value.)
    Last edited by dunstonh; 12-05-2018 at 3:12 PM.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 12th May 18, 3:20 PM
    • 1,826 Posts
    • 1,171 Thanks
    bostonerimus
    since launch 286.29%
    MSCI Europe ex UK TR 182.55%.

    So, its done much better.

    Since July 2009 when vanguard launched their tracker (which we know are your preferred options)

    argonaut 183.37%
    Vanguard 157.58%
    Benchmark 148.48%

    And finally from May 2010 to date

    Argonaut 109.93%
    Vanguard 104.78%
    Benchmark 97.98%
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    My point was not about performance, it's the 1% allocation that I think is "having a laugh". Outside the "Life Bond" I could also mention the Jupiter UK. But as you point out I would not have invested in a highly focused actively managed European fund, instead my stock allocation of a broad US equity tracker and a broad International tracker is up 275% since 2009. Apples to oranges I know, but if the OPs IFA had any type of plan I don't think we'd see the present pretty ridiculous portfolio. It looks like all the IFA did was to take the money and invest it in whatever fund was popular at that time.

    The Life Bond worries me a bit too. I hope that the OP is "high net worth" and is reaping significant tax and/or estate planning advantages and has maximized other tax advantaged ways of investing like pensions and ISAs first.
    Last edited by bostonerimus; 12-05-2018 at 4:08 PM.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 4:08 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    My point was not about performance, it's the 1% allocation that I think is "having a laugh". Outside the "Life Bond"
    I don't have an issue with that because the bond is a tax wrapper in isolation of the other tax wrappers/unwrapped holdings. So, its more like 3% of the wrapper. I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, our European weighting doesn't get to 5% until risk 6 (out of 10) and is typically just over half the US weighting.

    People will always have different opinions of investing. Especially when you consider there are tens of thousands of things you are investing in. Differences of opinion are inevitable.

    However, there is nothing actually wrong in the selection and calling it ridiculous is unfair.

    instead my stock allocation of a broad US equity tracker and a broad International tracker is up 275% since 2009
    A period when the US did very well. If the 9 year period prior to that had been selected, it would have not have done well because the US went through a sustained period where it underperformed the global markets significantly (when investing in Sterling). A period when Europe did better than both Global and North America. Picking a sector alone and going heavy in that has risks. It looks good when that sector does well but it looks awful when that sector does badly.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 12th May 18, 4:51 PM
    • 1,826 Posts
    • 1,171 Thanks
    bostonerimus
    I don't have an issue with that because the bond is a tax wrapper in isolation of the other tax wrappers/unwrapped holdings. So, its more like 3% of the wrapper. I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, our European weighting doesn't get to 5% until risk 6 (out of 10) and is typically just over half the US weighting.

    People will always have different opinions of investing. Especially when you consider there are tens of thousands of things you are investing in. Differences of opinion are inevitable.

    However, there is nothing actually wrong in the selection and calling it ridiculous is unfair.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Yes I have an aversion to slicing and dicing at the portfolio level, but there is an argument for it that we both know. However, little, or no, thought seems to have gone into the OPs portfolio as different funds were added each year. I feel pretty good about defending my description of this particular portfolio as "ridiculous".

    A period when the US did very well. If the 9 year period prior to that had been selected, it would have not have done well because the US went through a sustained period where it underperformed the global markets significantly (when investing in Sterling). A period when Europe did better than both Global and North America. Picking a sector alone and going heavy in that has risks. It looks good when that sector does well but it looks awful when that sector does badly.
    Keeping up the theme, my comparison of return was also ridiculous, as I believe the "look mine's bigger" school of performance generally tends to be. I have no idea of the overall performance of the OPs portfolio, it might be fantastic, but I still have an issue with the asset allocation of 82% equities for a retiree (unless there is significant other income or the OP is fabulously wealthy and has well known outgoings) and the Life Bond. The lack of apparent work done to produce a sensible portfolio and then a Life Bond being sold in 2010 probably with a nice commission raises some alarm bells. I could be wrong and maybe if the OP indicates the size of this portfolio, their pension/ISA levels and the function of the Life Bond we might get a bit more insight. If the Insurance policy was used because the OP had maxed out all other tax wrappers then I can see it's purpose.
    Last edited by bostonerimus; 12-05-2018 at 4:54 PM.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 5:07 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I still have an issue with the asset allocation of 82% equities for a retiree (unless there is significant other income or the OP is fabulously wealthy and has well known outgoings) and the Life Bond.
    There is nothing in the thread that gives any indication of what sort of weightings should exist. A retired person could be 60 with another 30 or so years to live. Or 85 and counting days. There could be 10k cash (in which case 80% equities may be high) or there could be 200k cash (in which case, 80% equities could be low). We lack the information to decide that.

    he lack of apparent work done to produce a sensible portfolio and then a Life Bond being sold in 2010 probably with a nice commission raises some alarm bells.
    There is nothing to suggest anything wrong with the initial work done. There is plenty to suggest "ongoing" work was lacking (and would continue to be if employed after SJP). However, pre-RDR (2013) required no ongoing work unless there was a contract to provide it. After 2013, only if there was a disturbance event would an ongoing work commitment be needed (or the trail turned off). He seems to have avoided creating a disturbance event.

    could be wrong and maybe if the OP indicates the size of this portfolio, their pension/ISA levels and the function of the Life Bond we might get a bit more insight. If the Insurance policy was used because the OP had maxed out all other tax wrappers then I can see it's purpose.
    In 2010 the taxation on a bond could be better than UTs. We can see that the OP did ISA, unwrapped and bond in 2010. So, in the pecking order, that would quite easily make sense. ISA was obviously best but the difference between unwrapped and bond was small. Sometimes the charges were lower as well. I used to use Aviva and Clerical Medical bonds back then. Aviva could actually give you a negative reduction in yield over 5 years in some cases (i.e. negative charges as the allocation was more than the annual charge). The CM bond was another that was good value at the time. Although we always did a tax comparison using software to see what came out best. Plus we annually do bed & ISA and leave enough in the unwrapped to see the ISA through for x number of years. It doesnt look like any bed & ISA was done in this scenario. But that would be a disturbance event.

    As I said, I dont see the initial set up being an issue. The ongoing or lack of ongoing (as is the real case) is the issue for me. But I think we agree that continuing to use this guy would be a bad move.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 12th May 18, 5:16 PM
    • 1,826 Posts
    • 1,171 Thanks
    bostonerimus

    As I said, I dont see the initial set up being an issue. The ongoing or lack of ongoing (as is the real case) is the issue for me. But I think we agree that continuing to use this guy would be a bad move.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Agreed.....but I'll push back on the 1997 asset allocation. It needs to be taken in context so I'd like to see what decided the choice of funds as it looks strange in isolation. The apparent lack of ongoing management as the OP approached retirement is very worrying as nothing has been mentioned about drawdown levels. Even for a 30 year retirement 82% equities is a little risky for most retirees, I'm planning for a 45 year retirement and I'm at 70% equities and I probably won't go north of 80% and that's with significant income coming from other sources than drawdown. If the OP has those too then I can see an argument for the allocation.
    Last edited by bostonerimus; 12-05-2018 at 5:24 PM.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th May 18, 6:52 PM
    • 92,634 Posts
    • 59,949 Thanks
    dunstonh
    .but I'll push back on the 1997 asset allocation.
    I have semi ignored it because it was 1997. Back to the pink papers days where you relied mainly on a monthly publication and there was virtually no due diligence as there were no real research companies available then.

    Even for a 30 year retirement 82% equities is a little risky for most retirees,
    I would put most between 40-60%. Indeed, most pre-retirement investors dont go above 60-70%
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • dc learning
    • By dc learning 14th May 18, 4:00 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    dc learning
    Been out for a few days - hence delay in replying, as well as reviewing above and checking a few things like: 'what is a 'disruptive event' and the portfolio listing.

    Apologies also for a 'mistake' in original post and maybe not providing additional context:

    - Listing Ignis Argonaut European Alpha was a mistake - it was part of original portfolio but was replaced by European Select relatively early.

    - as dunstonh mentions - the %s above are not original allocations, they are value of fund as % of total portfolio value at a point in latter 2017.

    - The total equities content has grown over recent years by about 6% and the fixed income/bonds portion declined (purely my own analysis to determine this) - hence the conclusion about considering rebalancing as a standalone portfolio, as 80% greater than our individual/joint profiles at present ( but were comfortable with high equities when starting out)

    - No clear decision/strategy/goal clarified just yet for above point - however - recognise that any new investments could be used as a means to 're-balance'.

    - This is not a 'retirement fund' - it is a joint husband/wife portfolio built up over the years

    - I am 63 - with a reasonable/adequate DB pension which is our main/only income - and funds will be used in future years as/when required for variable uses. I have developed a detailed future cash flow model with various assumptions. Am most definitely not wealthy - hence my interest in getting better handle on investment management and portfolio analysis and risk and areas for improvement

    - after some further checking - some funds have annual 'advisor fees' which potentially can be stopped/re-directed while others have commission embedded within annual charge and can only be stopped by disruptive event (I think) or switching to a 'clean share' class as I understand it. Have not checked every fund just a couple to understand situation/options.

    Hope I'm not overcomplicating this - I did a very detailed analysis of portfolio purely to improve my own understanding and education - as a standalone portfolio in its own right - before deciding how best to add some additional investments. It was the analysis of the portfolio that led me to the view that an holistic review and 're-balancing' is potentially appropriate' as a standalone portfolio - and this just comes full circle to who is appropriate person to review/challenge my own analysis and advise/suggest any options - recognising the original post about change in circumstances/advisor relationships.

    Previous responses have been helpful in triggering further thinking and understanding - so thanks for that.

    Appreciate points about historical build-up - which is valid consideration - my main driver now is to find best way to navigate to what is best strategy and approach going forward - and as mentioned by 'bostonerimus' - potentially 'a non-trivial process'.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 14th May 18, 6:49 PM
    • 1,826 Posts
    • 1,171 Thanks
    bostonerimus

    - after some further checking - some funds have annual 'advisor fees' which potentially can be stopped/re-directed while others have commission embedded within annual charge and can only be stopped by disruptive event (I think) or switching to a 'clean share' class as I understand it. Have not checked every fund just a couple to understand situation/options.

    Hope I'm not overcomplicating this - I did a very detailed analysis of portfolio purely to improve my own understanding and education - as a standalone portfolio in its own right - before deciding how best to add some additional investments.
    Originally posted by dc learning
    Do you have any documentation on how this portfolio has performed and the level of the fees?

    I'd be eliminating funds rather than adding to them. As you don't need the portfolio for retirement income you have some freedom to take more risk than most....or you could look at it form the opposite perspective and say you have the luxury of not needing to take as much risk as most people. Right now you are in the first situation.

    For once dunstonh and I are in happy agreement that you need to get away from SJP and your current adviser. That's an easy decision, what you do next will be more difficult. As an example, I'm in a similar situation to you; retired with a DB pension and a portfolio of investments that I don't need to touch. I have a simple portfolio that is basically 30% cash and bonds and 70% equities. My portfolio mainly consists of 3 large tracker funds.....I'm at the simplicity extreme as I am convinced it gives me the best change of a good return and with 24 funds in some pretty focused markets you are at the other extreme. Maybe there's a happy medium for you to find.

    Finally I'd look closely at your Life Bonds, those sort of insurance products are notorious for high fees. You might be locked in, but it's best to know exactly what you have.

    PS I just looked at the returns of a few of your larger percentage funds and they are awesome......some have increased by 7x. If you bought and held you'll be in good shape.
    Last edited by bostonerimus; 14-05-2018 at 7:11 PM.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

921Posts Today

7,191Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin