Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Do clean fund versions have better income yields?

Question
If a unit trust takes it`s annual management charge from income, am I right in thinking that post RDR the `clean version ` will produce a higher yield; as the AMC is lower?Answer
Yes, you're quite right.

Let's assume a fund charges 1.5% a year, which is taken from income before its paid out to investors. if the fund receives annual income equivalent to 4% of the fund, 2.5% (4 - 1.5) will be paid out to investors.

if the clean version of the fund charges 0.75% then 3.25% will be paid out (4 - 0.75).

Obviously, you may end up paying additional platform/discount t broker fees out of capital, potentially offsetting some of the benefit, but this is still a positive consequence of explicit clean charging.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/881/do-clean-fund-versions-have-better-income-yields

Should I use more than one fund platform for safety?

Question
After the financial crisis, people were advised to split their money between banks so that their money didn't go over the compensation limit of £85,000. Would you advise doing something similar with investments on fund supermarkets/investment platforms? What is the compensation limit in this case?Answer
Fund supermarkets/platforms, along with most stockbrokers these days, hold your money and investments in what's called a nominee account.

Nominee accounts are separate companies owned by platforms/stockbrokers that hold shares or funds on behalf of all their customers. While the nominee company owns the investment(s), it promises to pay customers what they're owed - i.e. dividends and proceeds when shares/funds sold, or the shares/units themselves if you move the nominee account to another broker. And the nominee company assets are ring-fenced from the main business , i.e. the platform/broker is not allowed to withdraw your money or investments for themselves.

So technically your money is safe. if the platform/broker goes bust the nominee account should be unaffected, save for a delay in finding another platform/broker to take on the nominee account or the investments being re-registered into your name.

However, in the event someone illegally dips their fingers into the nominee account you could lose money. While the chances are very slim when using an established, reputable company, I guess we should never say never.

In this event, assuming the platform/broker can't afford to make good the loss and goes bust then your claim would fall on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), giving you 100% protection on the first £50,000 invested per institution (i.e. platform/broker).

The funds you hold within the platform should also be covered by the FSCS giving £50,000 of protection per fund management company. So if fraud occurs at the fund level (rather than the platform) you'll be separately covered, Cash accounts (for example, within a SIPP) are likewise covered up to £85,000.

Should you use more than one platform for this reason when larger sums of money are involved?

I'm torn. In general I'd say no, as it rather defeats the point of using platforms in the first place (which is to make administration simple). However, when there's a risk, albeit very small, that someone could theoretically walk off with your life's savings it does seem sensible to ensure full FSCS protection.

I think this ends up being a personal choice, based on how much you value total peace of mind over convenience.

You can read more about nominee accounts in my article here.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/880/should-i-use-more-than-one-fund-platform-for-safety

Transfer from Hargreaves Lansdown to Cavendish Online?

Question
Thanks for your brilliant and informative website which I have only just discovered. I have substantial (for me) ISA and SIPP investments on the H-L Vantage Platform.

My ISA is in 9 different funds, as is my SIPP. I can see from your website that I am no longer getting the best value from using this platform. It would appear that as things stand that I would be better off using Cavendish for my ISA, not so sure about my SIPP.

However, is it worth waiting to see what H-L have up their sleeves as far as RDR is concerned or should I just take the jump and move to a cheaper platform like Cavendish now. Cavendish seem to have been good value for some time now and one would perhaps expect this to continue.

Anyway, keep up the good workAnswer
Thanks for the kind words, glad you like the site.

Cavendish online is very good value for ISAs provided you're comfortable with a straightforward no-frills service.

The main issue moving your ISA away from Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) is their steep £25 per fund charge (the previously charged VAT has recently been removed) to move your investments 'as is' (called 'in-specie') to another platform such as Fidelity FundsNetwork (as used by Cavendish) - on your 9 ISA funds this means a £225 bill. You can avoid the charge by selling the funds and transferring cash, but this means being out of the market for maybe a week or more.

HL has already said they'll likely charge a percentage fee of some sorts when they finally introduce their RDR charging (which must be by 6 April 2014 at the latest). Given their commission margin (after the loyalty bonus) averages about 0.6% a year it's not unreasonable to expect the average fee under the new charging to be similar.

This gives HL a big potential headache - customers may view the cost as too high once laid out in black and white. HL's response appears to be trying to negotiate lower fund charges than rivals, so they can add their healthy fee and not end up excessively expensive overall. Whether they manage to pull it off remains to be seen. But I suspect that even if they do negotiate rock bottom fund charges competitors will demand the same deals from fund managers and HL could still end up looking relatively expensive.

Since Cavendish Online (and underlying platform FundsNetwork) will also have to amend their charging I'd sit tight for now, especially given the high in-specie charge HL will impose. Provided Cavendish Online can negotiate the same current ISA deal via explicit fees - that is you'll pay 0.2% to FundsNetwork, 0.05% to Cavendish and 'clean' fund charges - the proposition should remain very competitive and well worth considering. But for the sake of a few months probably better to wait until the platforms and discount brokers have announced their new charging structures so you can compare the whole market.

Cavendish Online's SIPP proposition is a bit clunky and less appealing than some other rivals - take a look at my comparefundplatforms site to compare costs for the specific funds you hold.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/878/transfer-from-hargreaves-lansdown-to-cavendish-online

Friday, 17 May 2013

Are retail corporate bonds a good deal?

There's been a trend in recent years for some companies to offer 'retail' corporate bonds direct to the public, rather than the more usual route via markets. The Jockey Club and Nuffield Health being the latest examples. Although the interest rates on offer often look tempting versus savings accounts, are there catches? And should you take the plunge?.

What are corporate bonds


In simple terms an IOU from a company. In return for lending them money, they promise to pay you a fixed rate of interest for a fixed period of time and then repay the money you originally lent them (referred to as 'redemption'). You can read more on our Fixed Interest investments page.


Why do companies issue corporate bonds?


Because they want to borrow money. Alternatives include floating on the stock market (or, if they already are, issuing more shares) and bank loans. Issuing a bond can be attractive to companies who can't borrow money as cheaply from a bank and/or whose owners don't want to dilute their stakes.


How do retail corporate bonds differ from conventional?


The main difference is that retail corporate bonds are targeted at private investors, whereas conventional bonds are largely held by big institutional investors such as investment and pension funds. And while conventional corporate bonds may be traded via markets, some retail bonds forbid a change of owner, i.e. you must hold the bond until redemption. Retail bonds also tend to run over shorter periods of around 5 years, whereas 10+ years is more typical for conventional.


Why do companies issue retail corporate bonds rather than conventional?


Being cynical, companies turn to private investors when they think they stand a better chance of either raising the money or paying a lower rate of interest versus targeting intuitional investors. In fairness, the cost of issuing retail bonds is usually lower than conventional, so it can make more sense for companies to take this route when trying to raise more modest sums.


What happens if the company can't afford to pay me back?


You'll very likely lose some or all of your money. And, unlike savings accounts, such losses are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The same holds true if the company can't afford to pay you interest. Bonds vary as to where they rank in the creditor pecking order if a company goes bust, but in general don't expect to get much, if anything back should the company become insolvent.


What are the risks?


The main risk is that company can't afford to pay you interest and/or repay the sum borrowed. As above, this could mean losing some or all of your money. The trouble is, it's very difficult to gauge the likelihood of this. Without having an in depth knowledge of the company and industry concerned you'll probably have to take a leap of faith based on the information within the bond's prospectus - far from satisfactory.


Rising inflation and/or interest rates are also a threat. High inflation will reduce the amount future interest payments and your capital at redemption can buy. While higher interest rates could make the fixed interest payments you receive look less appealing.


What else should you watch out for?


If a bond is non-transferable then you've no choice but to hold until redemption, bad news if you need to get your hands on the money meanwhile. If a bond may be traded then you could sell before redemption, but might get back a higher or lower amount than your original investment depending on its market price at that time.


Some retail bonds include a gimmick within a high headline interest rate. For example, the Jockey Club bond quotes 7.25% annual interest (before tax), but 3% of this is paid via credits to spend at the races - not much use unless you're a keen racing fan - and 4.25% a year sounds far less appealing.


Never invest in a retail bond without reading the prospectus cover to cover. Yes, it's mostly dull as dishwater, but it may highlight specific risks or issues you'll otherwise miss. And keep an eye out for potential liabilities that could hit the company in future, for example debts that need repaying or a final salary pension scheme in deficit.


Does the interest on offer outweigh the risks?


This is something you'll have to judge yourself. However, if the retail bond term is 5 years then compare the interest offered to the rate on a 'best buy' 5 year fixed rate savings account - about 3% at the time of writing. The savings account is 'risk-free' (in so far as the first £85,000 is covered by the FSCS if the bank can't repay you), so any bond interest in excess of that is effectively the 'premium' you're getting to take some risk.


In the case of the Nuffield Health retail bond paying 6%, you're getting an extra 3% a year to compensate for the potential risks. Some might find this acceptable, others probably not.


Should you buy retail bonds?


Never buy them as a direct alternative to a savings account - there are risks involved and you could lose some or all of your money.


Otherwise you'll need to weigh up the risks versus the potential return on offer. And this is perhaps the big stumbling point. Most private investors, me included, would struggle to gauge the potential risks with any degree of accuracy. Without the ability and/or time to thoroughly understand a company's business, accounts and bond terms and conditions, investors (to varying degrees) end up having to take a punt.


On balance I don't think retail bonds are necessarily bad (each must be judged on its merits), but if one of these bonds does go belly up in future we can expect a lot of investors moaning they didn't have a clue what they were buying!

Read this article at http://www.candidmoney.com/articles/272/are-retail-corporate-bonds-a-good-deal

Tuesday, 14 May 2013

Best platform for regular fund ISA saving?

Question
I would like to start investing on a monthly basis into a stocks and shares ISA. Pleas could you advise on the best platform to use in terms of low charges, good selection of funds and ease if use.Answer
In simple terms there are currently two different models of how platforms charge customers.

The first is to charge a fixed annual amount for the use of the platform with dealing fees usually applied to funds too. This is often the best value for larger portfolios, especially if you don't trade funds that often.

The other is to charge a percentage amount (either directly or via retained commissions) based on the value of investments you hold, with dealing fees seldom applied to funds. This is usually the cheaper route for smaller sums.

You don't really want to pay dealing charges on monthly fund savings, even though some platforms offer a £1.50 monthly dealing option, and fixed annual platform charges tend only to become cost effective when investing c£50,000 or more, so the latter percentage route is likely to be your best option.

Charles Stanley Direct offers nice, clean, pricing - that is low cost funds without commissions/platform fees built in and a 0.25% annual charge. Fund research is still a bit thin on the ground, as it's a new entrant, but this may improve in future. TD Direct Investing offers a similar deal, but with a higher 0.35% annual charge. Bestinvest still uses old school pricing, that is it receives commission (usually via higher fund charges) and rebates some to customers, but should still be fairly competitive in this scenario and offers good fund research and tools - the same holds true for rPlan. Cavendish Online also uses the commission rebate model and offers few frills, but tends to be cheap and uses the proven FundsNetwork platform.

The main consideration when using platforms/discount brokers who currently still receive/rebate commission is that their pricing model will need to change by 6 April 2014 (6 April 2016 for existing customers who don't switch funds/increase regular saving amounts), so there's a risk it could become less appealing for regular savings, although probably not something to lose sleep over.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/874/best-platform-for-regular-fund-isa-saving

Avoid Scottish financial companies in case of independence?

Question
My wife and I live in Wales and are are considering moving our ISA portfolio's from Hargreaves Lansdown to another platform. The favourite choice on cost is Alliance Trust who are domiciled in Scotland but wonder what the implications might be if Scotland became independant. Do you have a view on this?Answer
This is a good question to which I guess no-one knows the answer at this stage. However, assuming Scotland does become independent future then the following issues might be relevant in your case.

Will Scotland have its own financial regulator?
If Scotland has its own version of the Financial Services Conduct Authority (FCA) there's a question whether it'll be effective and whether it will have a complaints system comparable to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Some might argue it could hardly be worse!

If Scotland has its own regulator it will also need to introduce its own compensation scheme, to replace the Financial Service Compensation Scheme (FSCS). It's unlikely compensation limits would be below those of the FSCS, especially as the £85,000 (€100,000) savings limit is specified by EU law.

Will Scotland have its own version of pensions/ISAs?
Quite possible and there's a chance allowances and tax breaks could differ from those in Britain. It would be confusing, but I doubt there would be anything stopping Alliance Trust Savings and others continuing to offer British tax incentivised products to British customers as well as any new Scottish products to Scottish customers.

Will Scotland have its own currency?
Maybe, but if so I would expect Scottish financial institutions to still accept the British pound, so unlikely to be any change in practical terms.

In practice Scotland makes a lot of money from financial services, including from many customers based in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So even if independence does go ahead I think it's unlikely Scotland would risk doing anything that would jeopardise this custom. We can never say never, as politicians don't always make the smartest of decisions, but I don't think the possibility of independence is currently a reason to avoid Scottish financial providers.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/871/avoid-scottish-financial-companies-in-case-of-independence

Shold I use Bestinvest Select SIPP or other?

Question
I've got ISA (FundsNetwork/Cofunds) and a SIPP (FundsNetwork/Std Life - £100k) through BestInvest and a SIPP (ex Prot Rights - £50k) with HL. Didn't want to put everything in one pot! I've received a letter from BI saying that from 15/04 following RDR, Std Life has decided not to deal execution only or with self directed clients such as BI.

BI has been making me aware of their Select SIPP / ISA offerings - it looks too good to be true - and there must be some negatives to balance the positives when comparing FN with the Select products - possibly some of the charges outlined here: http://www.candidmoney.com/articles/268/beware-fund-platform-exit-charges

I've been with BI for many years and do like their approach /research. HL is OK, but I've had to move out of trackers to avoid platform charges. I only hold funds.

What do I do with my SIPPs? Just stay with FN without BI? Merge them both in the BI Select SIPP? Move one or more to another provider and forgo the research and guidance BI provides to build a balanced portfolio? It would be great if there was a website that allowed asset allocation, geo split etc to be defined and then from a list of user specified funds it would say "You can achieve this by X% of fund Y " but I've not found any. Answer
In general the Bestinvest Select SIPP costs less overall than Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) Vantage SIPP for a typical portfolio, although this does obviously depend on the specific funds held and amounts involved. This is thanks to Bestinvest giving, on average, slightly higher trail commission rebates than HL (as well as lower share dealing charges)..

Unfortunately, I can't include HL on my comparefundplatforms website as they refuse to send me the required data (including rebate percentages for each fund), otherwise it would be very easy for you run a quick comparison based on the investments you hold.

The main difference between the Bestinvest Select SIPP and FundsNetwork SIPP via Bestinvest is trail commission rebates, Bestinvest pays them on its SIPP but not FudnssNetwork's. But you're right to point out that exit charges on the Bestinvest SIPP are usually higher than FundsNetwork's if you want to transfer funds 'as is' to another platform in future.

If there's a flaw with the Bestinvest Select SIPP it's simply that there are lower cost SIPPs in the marketplace, especially if you hold funds. For example, Interactive Investor, Sippdeal and Alliance Trust Savings should all likely prove cheaper in your scenario. However, none of these companies has independent research or tools to match Bestinvest's, so it's a case of judging whether such factors are worth the extra cost.

The usual rationale for splitting a SIPP between more than one provider is to ensure greater coverage under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which only provides up to £50,000 cover per provider (although underlying investments might be separately covered). However, given your SIPP monies are ring-fenced from the provider itself the main risk is fraud, which is unlikely. So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over combining both pots with one reputable provider.

Your asset allocation website is a good idea and certainly possible. I hope one day to put something together along those lines, but since it requires buying in a lot of expensive data (i.e. fund holdings) and would take a considerable amount of my time to build I'm afraid it'll likely remain on the backburner for some time yet.

Read this Q and A at http://www.candidmoney.com/askjustin/870/shold-i-use-bestinvest-select-sipp-or-other