Citywire printed articles sponsored by:
View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a637065
SimplyBiz's Verbatim signs up 15 firms
by Rachael Revesz on Nov 26, 2012 at 09:53
Verbatim Asset Management has signed up its first 15 firms to its discretionary fund management service.
SimplyBiz Group launched the Verbatim discretionary service in May this year. Portfolios are run by fund managers James Hambro & Partners, Henderson Rowe, Smith & Williamson and TCF Investment.
The 24 risk-rated portfolios have no minimum investment limit and are run on a continuous basis, costing less than 1% including administration and VAT. There is a low cost passive option priced at 0.84%.
Neil Stevens (pictured), managing director of Verbatim Asset Management, said the proposition would help advisers to deliver a high quality service to clients.
‘Advisers using Verbatim Discretionary will find they retain total control of the client relationship, have unprecedented transparency of costs and can be confident of the ongoing suitability as they control the portfolio mandate for their clients,’ he said.
‘Our handpicked team of discretionary managers will deliver quality portfolio management while ensuring the adviser is always central to the performance monitoring, reporting and client reviews.’
Markets
News sponsored by:
Today's top headlines
iShares: Time to shatter the ETF myths
As result of industry changes - the retail distribution review - and a growing focus on cost-efficient solutions, we anticipate the number of investors using ETFs will rise significantly over the coming years.
But as with any newer product, especially in the financial world, various misconceptions about ETFs have perpetuated over the years and iShares is committed to addressing and ultimately dispelling these.
More about this article:
More from us
- SimplyBiz's Verbatim boosts sales team with three new hires
- SimplyBiz strikes deals with Zurich and Prudential
- SimplyBiz launches DFM service through Verbatim
- SimplyBiz launches DFM service through Verbatim
Archive
Read more...
FSCS loses appeal against landmark High Court payout ruling
by Michelle Abrego on Jun 18, 2013 at 18:29
5 comments so far. Why not have your say?
Paul Barnard
Nov 26, 2012 at 10:30
I'd love to see the results of the back-testing that they must have done to see what effect that 0.16% p.a. reduction has made on passives v active over a 3,5 and 10 year period.
report thisStephen Ng
Nov 26, 2012 at 11:01
@Paul
Why dont you ask Neil Stevens for the data? I met him for the first time a few weeks ago and couldn't help but be impressed by his determination and passion to make things better and as easy for us to use. (No, before you say so, we havent signed up and are not one of the 15). It would be interestng to see his feedback.
report thisNeil Stevens (SimplyBiz)
Nov 26, 2012 at 11:39
For a £100,000 portfolio at risk level 5 an active fund based portfolio works out TER equiv of 1.19% including management costs, trading into the portofolio (£158 trading costs - 0.16%) underlying (£65.52pa) & custody costs and the platform itself. Passive option is 0.94% hence 25bps TER differential.
(Obvioulsy higher portfolio sizes amortise £costs to lower %s)
Please remember all pricing includes a full platform service that has been built for us by Winterfloods.
Send me your email address to n.stevens@simplybiz.co.uk and I'll send the full portfolio breakdowns which included all costs (TER equivalent approach). Verbatim is about 'telling it like it is'!
report thisPaul Barnard
Nov 26, 2012 at 13:56
I'm not disputing the costs, I was asking what your back testing told you about active v passive, that was all. So you haven't exactly told me how it is at all, really.
report thisEugen
Nov 26, 2012 at 22:51
What an utterly non-sense, to express risk by using standard deviation. It is an invite to free lunch, to use investment which don't have a high standard deviation but can add liquidity risk, counteparty risk, default risk etc. It looks to me people are still relying on the deceased MPT. That theory died 5 years ago, after it was sick from 1999 with the failure of the LTCM.
Shall I remeber them that LTCM died because of a change in the liquidity on US bonds.
report thisleave a comment
Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.