Teather & Greenwood Investment Management
Type: Full Sipp
Minimum investment: Lump sum £75,000
Investment choice: All Inland Revenue permitted investments
Administrator: Wolanski & Co Trustees
Charges: Initial £350, annual £400
Commission: Subject to negotiation
Tel: 020 7426 9003
The panel: Ian Anderson, Director, Silvesters,
Bob Lawrence, pensions director, Duncan Clarke,
Mike Humble, Regional director, Health Lambert Consulting,
Steve Perdisatt, Resarch manager, Burns Anderson.
Investment options 6.3
Company's reputation 5.3
Past performance 3.0
Product literature 6.0
The Teather & Greenwood Investment Management self-invested personal pension (Sipp) is a full Sipp that provides access to all Inland Revenue permitted investments.
Looking at how the Sipp fits into the market Humble says: “It will fit very well into the growing Sipp market, but it is not really a new product, more a repackaging of existing services.” Lawrence says: “It will suit direct high- net-worth clients with large pension funds and large transfer values. It will be in competition with other Sipp providers such as James Hay.”
Anderson says: “The plan is yet another addition to an ever growing market. Its success will be determined by the experience advisers and clients have of its ongoing administration and the knowledge advisers have of Wolanski & Co.”
Identifying the typical client base for the Sipp Lawrence says: “High-net-worth clients with large pensions funds or large transfer values seeking maximum flexibility, a high level of service and expertise.” Perdisatt says: “Wealthier clients primarily, given the sliding scale of the charges. It may also suit larger fund holders considering pension fund withdrawal.”
Anderson says: “Sipps are suitable for those wanting control over their investments or potential property purchase, as well as those with large accumulated funds desiring a wider spread of investments than offered by individual product providers. The typical Sipp owner tends to be the sophisticated individual who wants to make use of more than just the normal insured funds.”
Discussing the marketing potential for the Sipp Perdisatt says: “This market is already overcrowded and from this literature, I cannot see much that makes it really stand out, although the backing of Cater Allen Bank is in its favour.” Anderson and Lawrence see no new opportunities. Humble says: “I expect that the Sipp package will complement T&GIM's existing services, in particular its tax-efficient solutions range, thereby strengthening client relationships.”
Turning to the main useful features and strong points of the Sipp Humble says: “Simplicity of a packaged product utilising the Sipp expertise of Wolanski & Co, Cater Allen's banking facilities and T&GIM's investment management skills. This will be all that most investors need, while retaining full Sipp investment freedom. Online dealing and access to information, but only for assets managed by T&GIM.” Lawrence says: “It is an independent Sipp offering the expertise of T&GIM and Wolanski as trustees. It is a very personal Sipp under which the client has a high degree of control.”
Assessing the range of investment options Anderson says: “Apart from the in-house discretionary, managed advisory, advisory execution services offered by T&GIM, it does not offer anything different to any other Sipp. This is slightly tongue in cheek as I am not aware of T&GIM's track record on either discretionary or managed services.”
Humble says: “The Sipp has a wide range of investment options which can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the client.” Perdisatt says: “It offers the full range, including insured managed funds and commercial property.”
Moving onto the disadvantages of the Sipp Humble and Lawrence can find none. Perdisatt says: “I do not think Teather & Greenwood is a particularly well-known brand name for IFAs. The annual management charge seems high unless you have in excess of £1m to invest.” Anderson says: “The main handicap is T&GIM's lack of reputation among advisers. I am sure that there will be a few advisers that are familiar with T&GIM. However, I am not one of them.”
Looking at the Sipp's flexibility Humble says: “It is no more flexible than most Sipps. Although the Sipp has full investment freedom, T&GIM's intention is to make its investment services so useful to clients that they will not need to invest elsewhere.” Anderson cannot see any more flexibility than any other Sipp. Lawrence thinks it is excellent and that it has ultimate flexibility written the realms of a Sipp.
Considering T&GIM's reputation Perdisatt says: “Teather & Greenwood is probably best regarded as an investment management house. I do not think there is much of a reputation on the pensions side.” Humble says: “It is a long established stockbroker offering a rounded service to a range of client types.” Lawrence thinks it is superb. Anderson is not aware of any reputation, good or bad.
Reviewing T&GIM's past performance Humble says: “I'm only aware of published information regarding performance of their relatively new UK equity Oeics which have not performed well, but it is too early to make judgements. T&GIM can, however, show good track records for individual managers, for example John Sweet.” Lawrence thinks it is very good.
Anderson says: “It claims to be one of the UK's leading investment management and corporate stockbrokers. However, when you investigate the portfolios that it is offering as the main reason for using the Sipp, it is quoting one month's performances. It may be a large institutional manager, but it is hard to translate management of institutional money to the retail market.”
Identifying the competitors the fund will face Humble says: “A whole range of full and hybrid Sipps from a variety of providers, some of which have excellent reputations for service, and for a Sipp this is extremely important. Jupiter has a similar arrangement with Wolanski and Cater Allen.” Lawrence goes for the James Hay and Cater Allen, while Perdisatt suggests James Hay and the larger life offices that offer full Sipps.
Humble sees the charges as consistent with other full Sipp providers. Anderson thinks charges are fair provided the Sipp owner has a reasonable size fund. But he points out people will need a decent calculator to add up all of the various charges. Lawrence thinks the charges reasonable for the level of service and expertise likely to be provided, but feels they are higher than average. Perdisatt says: “I think they only become competitive for higher investment amounts.”
Turning to commission Humble says it is payable to introducers as a share of investment management fees and on trading commissions, but would expect to have to charge clients fees in addition. Perdisatt says: “Again, it works better on the sliding scale favouring higher investments.” Anderson says it seems to only cater for fee based advice, unless you get T&GIM to manage the investment when the adviser will receive a percentage.
Casting an eye over the product literature Lawrence thinks it is average. Humble says: “It is generally informative and simple to understand. The literature appears to be aimed at informing rather than selling. Information is also available regarding T&GIM's investment services on their easy to navigate web site. There is also a demo facility in respect of the online dealing service.” Perdisatt says: “It is fairly dull and uninteresting, it could do with better presentation. Having said that, it covers the key points in a relatively easy to read manner.”
Anderson thinks the target market is the sophisticated client and that the literature lays things out simply, giving the impression of quality. he complains that there is not much background to the companies that you would be entrusting your hard earned million pound pension funds to.
Summing up, Anderson says: “This offering is a little confusing. For further information you are directed to Wolanski & Co Trustees Ltd. Why is it called the T&GIM Sipp and not the Wolanski Sipp.”