View more on these topics

‘DFMs are expensive and they add little value’: How Informed Choice makes investment decisions

For the latest in our series on how advice firms make their investment decisions, Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford discusses why he remains sceptical about DFMs and how he picks the right platform for each client

Martin BamfordIs your investment management kept in-house or outsourced to a third party?

We outsource elements of our investment management but keep most of the control in-house. Important elements that get outsourced include risk profiling and asset allocation, both from Distribution Technology. We have been users of its Dynamic Planner tool for years and its recent improvements to risk profiling have enhanced the value of this even further.

While we make extensive use of the decisions made by DT’s investment committee, we have our own in-house committee too, which I chair. This consists of our financial planners and paraplanners, all contributing their views and sense-checking the suggested asset models put forward by DT.

Historically, our in-house investment committee would suggest tactical adjustments to the strategic asset allocation positions in an attempt to add extra value to client portfolios. In reality, this complicated what was an extremely simple and effective investment approach, so we now stick to the big picture of asset allocation and then select funds to populate the broad asset classes.

What investment options do your clients have?

Most of our clients use one of our model portfolios. These are then tailored to suit individuals – for example, adjusting the cash allocation to cover withdrawal needs or reducing allocation to property if these assets are already held elsewhere.

Our model portfolios are currently made up of unit trusts and Oeics, with both actively managed and index tracker funds. In the past, we made use of exchange-traded funds but prefer trackers today, as these are more widely available and tend to be cheaper to trade.

For clients who need something more bespoke, we follow an identical investment advice process, using the same fund selection ideas and philosophy to support recommendations.

How are funds selected for the model portfolios?

Fund selection is carried out in-house, based on a simple quantitative screen I built more than a decade ago. This screening process helps us to identify funds which have the desired attributes of low-cost, consistency and good risk-adjusted returns. It means we only recommend funds that do what they say on the tin.

We apply our quant screen to the entire universe of investment funds, scoring them based on 12 factors that represent the attributes we are looking for. Once scored, we carry out more detailed qualitative research, including conversations with fund managers, to understand their philosophy and process in more detail.

Why do some funds not make it on to your panel?

One factor we always filter out is funds with a very short track record. I would feel uncomfortable recommending any fund to a client until it had been established for at least three years, preferably much longer. There are so many launches that fail to attract sufficient assets or perform poorly. With a great range of long-established funds from which to choose, there is no need to recommend new ones.


Date company established: 1994
Assets under management: £252m
Number of staff: 12
Number of clients: 384
Platforms used: Fidelity FundsNetwork and Ascentric
DFMs used: N/A

How often are funds in the model portfolios reviewed and what would lead to changes?

We formally review our fund selection once a year in December. It is unusual to see us change more than a couple of the funds in our model portfolios; the screening process we use is very good at identifying consistent performers.

During the course of the year, any major events at a fund provider or in the management of a selected fund could prompt an ad-hoc fund review in that sector. In the past decade, this has only happened twice.

Our asset allocation models are reviewed quarterly by DT, which makes adjustments typically once a year. If there are any significant changes to the capital market assumptions it uses, it can result in more frequent asset allocation changes, although we are yet to experience this.

Do you ever use discretionary fund managers?

We rarely use DFMs, as our investment process caters for the majority of our clients. For larger portfolios – say, more than £2m – we often increase the number of recommended holdings within a model portfolio to increase diversification.

Where clients have a particular need or desire to hold individual company shares within a portfolio, we would outsource this to a DFM. But, typically, we find what DFMs have to offer quite expensive and it adds little to value.

Which platforms do you use and why?

We will always choose a platform based on what the individual client needs. Our current platform of choice is Fidelity FundsNetwork, where we recently exceeded £100m of assets. Before that, we were making extensive use of Ascentric, but also hold assets on Cofunds, Transact and others.

Our preferred platform changes from time to time based on the cost of holding assets and, most importantly, service standards and functionality. It is incredible just how variable service standards can be from even the largest platform providers.

We recently outsourced a comprehensive platform due diligence and review exercise, with the results due in shortly. This exercise will inform our platform choices for the next year or so.


Volatility fears take multi-asset fund sales to £1bn

High market volatility in February resulted in more retail investors using multi-asset fund managers and pushing net sales up to £1bn, new figures show. Data from the Investment Association tracking net retail fund sales in February show investors avoided both bond and equity funds with £235m and £136m outflows, respectively. In early February the US […]


Rathbones in talks to buy fellow investment manager for £200m

Rathbone Brothers has confirmed it is in takeover talks with Scottish investment manager Speirs & Jeffrey in a potential deal worth £200m. In a stock exchange announcement released this morning, the group says it “regularly assesses various acquisition opportunities in line with its stated strategy”. However, it states that no binding offer has been made […]


Gina Miller attacks FCA over failure to tackle Mifid II breaches

SCM Direct founding partner Gina Miller has criticised the FCA for failing to tackle firms breaching Mifid II rules in its final asset management study report. The FCA published its final policy changes on Thursday, introducing new rules forcing fund managers to ensure their products provide value for the end investor. Miller criticises the regulator’s failure to respond to […]


FCA plans 4% increase in adviser levies

The FCA has proposed a 4.2 per cent increase in adviser fees for the coming year. For the 2017/18 financial year, the A13 fee block, of which advisers and other intermediaries are part, contributed £77.1m in regulatory fees. In a statement accompanying its business plan for the year ahead this morning, the FCA has proposed […]

FAMR – a familiar response

Pension specialist Fiona Tait takes a look at the Financial Advice Market Review and assesses the three areas where it suggests improvements can be made With significant budget changes ruled out (for a while anyway), the pension community briefly turned its attention to the FCA’s final report on its Financial Advice Market Review (FAMR), hoping […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Robert Milligan 10th April 2018 at 1:57 pm

    What, a load on tripe!! the complete opposite can be the only tenable option, so your “Para” planners and Advisers select the funds, please explain how this can happen, they can not be doing a lot of advising, the two are fundamentally opposed occupations. I have yet to meet an adviser who could convince me they have reviewed the “Whole” market, understood the correlation of assets class to convince me they along side advising could provide sufficient market research to justify doing both jobs. O yes and we do have a similar FUM figure as you have stated above. But are 100% utilising the professionalism of the DFM’s.

    • Calm down Robert no where does it say our Financial Planners or Paraplanners choose the investment funds. (They never do) Did you not read the bit about the long established quant screens?

      MM please choose Robert for the next profile of how firms make their investment decisions

  2. Martin you are in the main correct and Mr Milligan is in my view talking rot.

    Even as a one man band I managed to do my own investing. But perhaps unlike him I didn’t have to spend hours with my clients. I benchmarked all my bespoke portfolios (no models at all) and can honestly say that I did as well and perhaps in most cases better than the bulk of DFMs and the indices. I’m sure you do likewise. Plagiarism is a great research tool – if one bothers to read annual reports.

    I didn’t waste time with the ‘touchy feely stuff’ and I’m sure my clients wouldn’t have appreciated it anyway.

    I worked a ‘John Lewis’ principle as far as cost and charges were concerned – never knowingly undersold and even now I haven’t seen any adviser even getting close to my charges.

    For very large sums I sometimes recommended a Private Client Stockbroker. Indeed it would have been disingenuous if I wouldn’t have recommended the one I use myself for some of my own assets. However there were rules:

    1. No model portfolios – bespoke only.
    2. No collectives – I can do them cheaper.
    3. Ability to invest globally. No good just stuffing a portfolio full of UK stocks.
    4. Reasonable cost and good client service.

    This wasn’t an outsource – it was a referral. In other words no kick backs either way – that only adds cost. I would have general oversight as I then dealt with non CGT investments. – ISAs by general agreement – pensions and insurance bonds. I tried not to duplicate what the stockbroker did, but did benchmark my performance against his – with pretty satisfactory results. Me and the broker were therefore separate and the client in effect had to separate investment managers – who of course communicated for the benefit of the client – not each other!

    For large portfolios (say over £1 million it makes sense to have at least 33% in direct equities. As I used to say – I invest with a shotgun (collectives) but the stockbroker invests with a snipers rifle.

    But as I said overall I do agree with you. Most of the so called DFMs that I have come across are pretty average and invest in collectives anyway and that with the usual kick backs makes them far too expensive. Not to mention who carries the can in these situations.

    • Pretty much agree with you Harry and the only difference with my approach I suppose is you could accuse me of being a bit mroe £touchy feely” although I’d refer to it as “hand holding”.
      Most DFMs are nto what consumers or I would think of as “Discretionary Fund Managers”, they are just “model portfolio” providers with discretionary permissions and add little (if any) value over and above what a MM fund might provide. About the only use I see for DMs at the moment is for Business property relief qualifying aim portfolios which we often have as a proportion of their portolios, invariably in their ISA instead of smaller company funds due to the additioanl IHT advanatages.
      We work in a very simialr way to Martin I think (just don’t use DT anymore as we were only using it for risk profiling etc and effectively were paying for all the other bells and whistles we never used)
      @Martin – Good article…..Explaining how different firms do things, even if we don;t all want to do the same helps understanding of our own options so I wish others (Robert) wouldn’t be so critical, Martin wasn’t telling you to work like his and his Dad’s firm, just saying “we do it thsi way”.I like reading studd like this from Martin and Dennis Hall (especially as Dennis, unlike Martin, also tells us what DIDN’T work for his firm. Martin is invariably positive, but learing from others mistakes is as important as learning from what works for them)On that note Martin,I thought your main WRAP was Std Life?

Leave a comment