View more on these topics

Squids in

Octopus Asset Management is hoping to raise £15m through the launch of a VCT next month which will invest in smaller companies. Given the depressed state of the market, have the days when VCTs could easily raise this amount gone or will they stage a comeback when the stockmarket recovers and investors have capital gains liabilities to postpone?

Both: While it would be easy to dismiss anyone who is thinking of investing in VCTs at the present time as barking mad, it would also be completely wrong. Not only do VCT subscriptions attract immensely valuable tax breaks but, according to Micropal, over the last three discrete years, the average VCT has significantly outperformed both UK smaller companies and UK all companies on an offer-tobid basis. In fact, there is definitely a case for considering VCTs in preference to Isas and pensions.

McDermott: The demand for VCTs is likely to be considerably less than last year. This means that VCTs will have to work harder to raise substantial sums. Lower demand brings lower supply and subsequently there are only two new offerings this autumn – the Phoenix and Cornerstone VCTs.

Nevertheless, despite the depressed state of the market, investors still have some capital gains to shelter, whether from the sale of a property or business, and top-ups could be the answer. Most companies have opted to offer top-ups to their existing portfolios, thereby reducing costs and preventing a repeat of last year when three VCTs were withdrawn due to a lack of funds raised.

Top-ups require a very small level of subscription to go ahead and the client gets access to a fully or partially invested portfolio with all the tax breaks.

Bowes: VCTs have generally failed to raise their minimums over the last 12-18 months due to investors&#39 increasing unwillingness to take such high risks. It is, therefore, conceivable that as investor confidence returns, the VCT market may pick up again. However, investors currently place more emphasis on retention of capital and their appetite for higher risk is likely to take some time to recover. This is true even when there are significant tax breaks.

The FSA is believed to be considering cutting projection rates for with-profit policies amid concerns that they may be overstating likely future performance. With life companies increasingly basing their asset allocation more on protecting or replenishing depleted reserves than on generating performance for investors, do you think the regulator should act?

Both: One of the reasons for the severity of the current stockmarket plunge has been the over-enthusiastic reduction of the institutions&#39 reserves by a Government (and political “poodle” regulator) insatiable for tax to squander, ably abetted by insurance companies mostly too supine to argue their strong case for maintaining them at much higher levels.

Forcing insurance companies to dump their best equities to meet an ill-conceived benchmark has resulted in an avalanche of selling which has exacerbated rather than alleviated the situation.

Future performance, unless guaranteed, is just a guess. The regulator should remember that itself and simply impress this fact upon the public, limiting its role to ensuring that insurance companies are properly provisioned to meet in full any guarantees they have in force. Let the market decide for itself whether it wants low guaranteed returns or to take a punt on possibly higher (or lower) ones.

The FSA pretending that it knows what is going to happen in the future and blaming everyone involved for normal market fluctuations is a conceit that we can all ill afford again.

McDermott: Currently, with-profits illustrations show projected returns of 4 per cent, 6 per cent and 8 per cent. If the regulator enforces the change to lower figures of, say, 2 per cent, 4 per cent or 6 per cent, who is going to buy the product? Surely investors would look elsewhere. Ultimately, it is in the interest of the insurance companies for with-profits funds to generate competitive returns as an asset class and until there has been long-term underperformance below the projected figures, then the current rates should remain as they are.

Having said that, one can understand why there have been calls for a revision of the figures in view of the current investment climate. Now that we are three years into a bear market, returns of 4 per cent, 6 per cent 8 per cent within a low-risk environment seem far away.

Bowes: I feel that the current illustrative returns of 4, 6 and 8 per cent are fair. It is likely that a number of with-profits funds do not meet even these low projections but all companies should not be tarred with the same brush. What is important is that financial advisers have access to proper research in order to choose the stronger funds for their investors. It is also important that investors are fully educated to the fact that these are illustrations only and should not be depended upon.

The Investment Management Association recently published research from consultants Charles River Associates showing that past performance is a key indicator of a fund&#39s potential for future top-quartile performance. Now there is factual evidence of a link between the two should the FSA introduce a standardised form at for the presentation of past performance in marketing material.

Both: It was always clear to anyone with at least half a brain that there is a strong link between a fund manager&#39s past performance and their future performance. It is the link between the past and future performance of market sectors which is less predictable.

If the FSA emphasised that fact and stipulated that any institution which chose to publicise a fund&#39s past performance must indicate any significant changes in the composition of the management of that fund over the quoted period, it would do the public far more of a service.

McDermott: We have always believed that past performance is useful when assessing a fund. However, some distinctions should be made. Is the performance advertised delivered by the same manager? It is misleading for fund providers to advertise strong past performance if it was attained by previous managers.

There should also be some reference both to the level of risk taken to achieve the performance and whether or not the same level of performance is achievable in the future, that is, it is widely acknowledged that the ret-urns achieved in the 1990s are unlikely to be replicated in the foreseeable future.

Bowes: It is no secret that the majority of actively managed funds underperform their benchmark index and this is more than likely to continue into the future. However, the role of the IFA is to research and recommend the better-performing funds. We have always felt that past performance is one important element to consider when deciding whether a fund is suitable.

We welcome a ruling by the FSA to provide one format that past performance figures must adhere to. This should be set to restrict the manipulation of past performance figures, that is, companies choosing a particularly strong investment period while removing poorer performance or using the past performance of a star fund manager who has subsequently left.

Class Law, the legal firm making a group litigation application against more than 100 IFAs and fund managers involved in the split-cap debacle, is threatening to take the FSA to court for gross negligence. It claims the FSA may have been in possession of – but failed to act on – information from the Guernsey financial regulator which pointed to the risks of split-caps. If proved, do you believe the FSA has a case to answer?

Both: What is the point of the issuer of a share having to get its prospectus approved by the regulator if the integrity of the claims made at launch is insufficient and where the regulator subsequently accepts the excuse of the managers that “it&#39s not our fault – a big boy did it and ran away”? The FSA may enjoy eviscerating IFAs but, on balance, it does the public a huge disservice.

I think that individual regulators should be every bit as answerable for their actions as company directors, with the same penalties. In equivalent circumstances of gross negligence, they should be disbarred for life from holding positions of responsibility.

McDermott: This is a tricky question because, at the moment, no one knows exactly what Class Law is going to do. But I would find it worrying that the FSA had advance knowledge of problems with split-cap investment trusts and did nothing to protect investors.

Bowes: Many different problems contributed to the split-cap problem. We would be interested to know if the FSA had any forewarning of the socalled “magic circle”.

As we now know, this is being fully investigated but it is likely to be extremely difficult for even the regulator to get to the bottom of it. If it is disclosed that the FSA did have prior information, many people will claim that they are more responsible. However, at the end of the day, by the time they had got to the bottom of any information received, it is debatable as to whether investors would be in a better position today.

Many of the biggest UK fund managers have hit out at the Treasury&#39s backing of the Sandler report, saying that it will do nothing to close the savings gap and could defeat its own objective. Do you think the Treasury is right to support Sandler or should it have tempered some of his more controversial recommendations such as pricecapping the stakeholder suite of products?

Both: The Sandler report will fail to address the perceived savings gap if it forces price capping on the market. If some companies think that they can succeed by offering products at significantly higher charges than others, let the market, not the bureaucrats of the state, decide.

The sales figures that I have seen for stakeholder pensions seem to indicate that their take-up has been a dismal failure, especially given the massive amount of publicity not only from the providers but also the Government sheep dogs.

Since the regulator seems to expect the stakeholder providers to lose money on them for over a decade, this perhaps makes their failure a “success” from the perspective of shareholders and with-profits policyholders. Why the Treasury is so intent in decimating the remnants of the UK financial services industry is a mystery – unless Osama bin Laden has secretly been put in charge.

McDermott: The Sandler report has good intentions with regard to a number of improvements in financial services but the solutions it offers appear rather inadequate. Therefore, the Treasury was unwise to support Sandler in so many areas. A particular topic where there is a problem is with the debate over price capping. I think price capping does not work and that has been highlighted by the failures of Cat-standard investments and stakeholder pensions.

Bowes: The Treasury should tread very carefully in fully supporting Sandler&#39s issues. Stakeholder products raise concern – we are unconvinced that “dumbed-down” investment products being sold by unqualified people will help consumers make sensible provision for their future.

Product providers will be unable to afford to run these products long term on a 1 per cent annual management charge. If the best managers are not going to enter the market, people will be restricted to having their funds managed by banks and life companies. If the Treasury backs these products, they will be encouraging investors to place their capital in passive funds. In the current climate, a passive fund is not the best investment.

Michael Both, Proprietor,Michael Philips

Darius McDermott,Managing director, Chelsea Financial Services Anna Bowes, Savings and investment manager,Chase de Vere


CII misselling warning over exclusion of T&C

The FSA proposal to exclude training and competence requirements for non-advised mortgage sales could result in consumer confusion and misselling, says the Chartered Insurance Institute. The CII&#39s warning comes in its submission to the FSA&#39s consultation on CP146, which outlines its approach to the regulation of mortgage advice. Under the regulator&#39s proposals, the non-advised route […]

&#39Income funds can also win on growth&#39

Investors must recognise the importance of dividend yield and growth to get the most out of their portfolio, warns Merrill Lynch Investment Managers. Although high-income funds are often seen as an option which forsakes capital growth in return for income, research by the company shows that total return, including dividend income and share price performance, […]

Close Brothers tops up VCT

Close Brothers is raising up to £20m for its development venture capital trust (VCT), which was established in 1999.This generalist VCT has raised £14.8m to date and looks mainly for established companies which are backed by freehold or long leasehold properties. This is intended to minimise the risks associated with investing in small unquoted companies.The […]

Bedlam Asset Management – Bedlam Global Fund

Friday, November 15, 2002 Type: Oeic Aim: Growth by investing in global equities Minimum investment: Lump sum £3,000 Place of registration: Dublin Investment split: 100% in global equities Isa link: Yes Pep transfers: Yes Charges: Annual subject to negotiation Commission: None Tel: 020 7648 4300


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


    Leave a comment


    Why register with Money Marketing ?

    Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

    News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
    Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

    Money Marketing Events
    Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

    Research and insight
    Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

    Have your say
    Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

    Register now

    Having problems?

    Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

    Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm