October 2020
Can risk-managed portfolios deliver value for advisers?
A simple recipe
Introduction by Money Marketing Editor Justin Cash
Smoothed funds have created a space for those with a low-to-medium risk appetite, in the form of multi-asset risk-rated funds designed to deliver lower volatility for investors. The concept is similar to that of with-profits funds, which were very popular in the 1980s and 1990s. Smoothing can remove day-to-day worries that arise from short-term market volatility, and tend to come with a long-term (five or more years) view. In this supplement, we take a comprehensive look at the role of smoothed funds and those they are most suited to. How advisers use them within a balanced portfolio for those at retirement can differ, so finding the right suitability and solution can be key. Volatility has been an issue over the past few years and it is something retirees would want to shy away from. We also look at how volatility needs managing, particularly for the low-risk client. A lack of product capability, particularly in technology, is something we take a closer look at in this supplement, finding out how it could make it difficult for clients to manage the challenging decumulation phase, and how changing propositions and having a coherent strategy can help as much as product choice.
© Metropolis Financial Platforms Ltd 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Click here for disclaimer
In association with
Risk has been the watchword for advisers in recent years. From the FCA's suitability review to its work on vulnerable clients, from defined benefit transfers to product governance rules, the situation is crystal clear: you're expected to get the right kind of products into the right kind of hands. Should risk-targeted funds - those that are managed to a particular risk mandate - play a part in meeting this challenge? And if so, what can this role be? In this supplement, we take a look at the sector's history, tracking how adviser attitudes towards it have evolved, and what patterns are emerging in how advisers are adopting risk-managed funds into their portfolios. We'll take a look at the key due diligence and suitability questions that arise, as well as dive into some case studies from advisers. Will we see further developments in the likes of centralised investment propositions, as regulatory requirements and the pressure of Covid-19 come to bear on the planning profession? In the tradeoff between value and complexity, where is the right place to draw the line when it comes to picking the right solution for your client? We hope our analysis comes at a useful moment for planners. In such a competitive environment, risk-targeted managers are facing a crunch time along with so many others. Advisers need to be armed with the knowledge and tools to be able to judge where performance and service match up to the costs on offer.
Partner content
Future fit funds: are risk-targeted offerings covering all bases?
Q&A with Aegon MD Tim Orton
Why Aegon’s risk-managed portfolios ‘keep it simple stupid’
Simple but effective
Risk assessment
Features
Go to… ‘Keep it simple stupid’
Go to… Q&A with Tim Orton
By Natasha Turner
As risk-targeted funds face their first big test amid the global pandemic, does their increase in popularity mean they are the right choice for many clients?
Another reason is changes to regulation and shifts in attitude. For example, more sophisticated risk profiling by advisers has become increasingly commonplace, perhaps leading to a growth in funds that match these outcomes – and indeed a rise in fund managers linking with risk profilers to launch fund ranges. “The rise of risk-profiling tools has constituted one of the most significant, and under-discussed, changes to the dynamics of fund distribution since the RDR,” consultancy Platforum says. “A greater standardisation of financial planning processes has resulted in a more ‘pastry cutter’ approach to portfolio selection, where the cutter is a risk-profiling tool.” Using volatility as the key risk outcome can pose problems, however. “If you look at commercial property, which is a low volatile asset class and is currently suspended, you see the flaw in using volatility. It's fine when everything's going alright, but you get a situation like Covid-19 and suddenly all those assets have to be rapidly revalued and you see big drawdowns on those low volatile asset classes,” the manager says. Off the back of that, the manager feels many clients may be underexposed to risk assets in their investment strategies, particularly as people are becoming less inclined to take a lot of risk. This is, of course, where advisers add value; having conversations with their clients about risk, and their goals and requirements, and in many cases challenging their assumptions. However, a 2018 survey by Financial Express found just 11 per cent of advisers often increased the risk level of clients, with 80 per cent doing so occasionally. “While advisers see their role as identifying a client’s risk profile, they generally do not see it as trying to educate them into changing it, even if it will mean they are more likely to achieve their goals,” the survey said.
Perfecting the profile
‘Risk-targeted funds could do with being a bit more open, and clearer with advisers about what they should expect’
In many cases, risk-profiling tools are now directly linked to portfolios. Platforum found that, overall, 75 per cent of advisers said they were using tools that linked through to asset allocation. This is a slight increase from 69 per cent last year. The smaller the firm, the more likely it was to use such tools, it said. “The regulator has encouraged advisers to risk profile their clients and to drive those clients into investment strategies that match those risk profiles,” a leading asset manager tells Money Marketing. “The way the industry has interpreted that is to use modelling tools that come up with asset allocation, with the volatility as the key risk outcome.”
The allocation question
‘A greater standardisation of financial planning processes has resulted in a more ‘pastry cutter’ approach to portfolio selection’
This year may prove key in assessing the value of these relatively new funds as many are tested for the first time, particularly when commercial property suspensions are lifted. “We've seen a wide-scale difference between good performance and bad performance in these past six months during the pandemic and the recent crash,” says Stratagem Financial Planning director Paul Lindfield, who uses risk-targeted funds as the core of his centralised investment proposition.
First big test
‘If you’re running a fund-of-funds, a one-man band is not going to be enough’
Risk may not be as simple as a number on a page but that’s not to say funds targeting volatility in a robust and nuanced way cannot be a valuable solution for advisers. Despite the fact that risk-targeted funds are facing their first big test with this year’s pandemic and market crashes, the rise in their popularity may mean they are in fact the right solution for many - as long as advisers ensure they challenge their clients’ assumptions about risk.
‘We've seen a wide-scale difference between good performance and bad performance in these past six months’
Home
Giving a client a risk score and being able to instantly match it with a fund that promises to stay within that limit has been an appealing prospect for many advisers. The recent rise in risk-targeted funds attests to that. But advisers should not confuse simplicity with overly simple processes, especially in a year when many of these funds are being tested for the first time. Simply put, risk-targeted funds are aligned to an investor’s risk profile and are managed to always remain within that band of risk. The types of asset within various classes are risk assessed so it is not just the overall mix that determines the risk target. For example, a portfolio of high-yield bonds and emerging market equities may not be a balanced portfolio just because it has an even split of bonds and equities. Risk-rated funds, by comparison, are often described as having been given a rating at a fixed point in time based on historical performance, rather than a target to constantly maintain. In 2018 Money Marketing reported that assets in risk-target managed funds had grown by 400 per cent in five years, from £1.3bn in 2012 to £5.4bn in 2017, a significantly higher rate of growth than that of risk-profiled funds. What is causing this growth in popularity? One reason is the apparent rise in outsourcing. Consultancy The Lang Cat’s State of the Adviser Nation Report showed this year that nearly three-quarters of advisers had outsourced investment management to multi-managers or multi-asset providers, compared with 44 per cent last year.
“What's worked well historically, and the funds that have provided the best risk-adjusted returns over the past five years or so, are those that are much more globally oriented and those that have had exposure to benchmark- or index-like duration, which has tended to be longer as governments have issued longer-dated bonds,” he says. “We have seen a trend over the past 10 years, and five years as well, where people are happy to have more globally oriented portfolios.
A number of managers now say they do not allocate assets by attaching a volatility to an asset class, but instead focus on the correlation of assets and different securities. An example could be the variance in technology equities compared with bank equities. Square Mile Investment Consulting and Research head of risk-based solutions research Alex Farlow says, when it comes to asset allocation, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, but, historically, higher-duration portfolios with greater exposure to the US have done well.
“Whether that's because more people are aware of the Faang stocks, or whether it's just those particular companies have done well in the UK market since Brexit has struggled, I'm not sure; I imagine a bit of both. But that's not to say that particular approach will work best over the long term. It is horses for courses.” Where Farlow sees value in risk-targeted funds is with those run by businesses with strong resources that are extensive enough to cover the investment landscape. “If you’re running a fund-of-funds, for example, a one-man band is not going to be enough,” he says. He also believes a straightforward, proven process with a demonstrable record is key; and, importantly, a process that can be well articulated. “Risk-targeted funds could do with being a bit more open, and clearer with advisers about what they should expect.”
Whether for lower-end clients or as a core part of their proposition, advisers are often finding risk-targeted funds, when used correctly, to be a cost-effective and appropriate solution
‘Firmly financial planners’
‘You put money in there, you monitor them from time to time, and they don't need an awful lot of looking after’
For advisers, the most important thing when it comes to clients’ investments is that they match their needs and goals, which includes designing or choosing them with capacity for loss in mind. In this sense, the Covid-19 crisis ideally should not have had much of an impact on portfolios - whether they include risk-targeted funds or not - if constructed well.
Covid-19
‘Whatever you say about risk-targeted funds, they're efficient’
“It’s quite startling and also quite reassuring to see how your CIP works in a crisis,” says Lindfield. Goldsmith adds: “Capacity for loss should cover bank collapses, wars, oil crises and pandemics. It’s the loss to the clients that is important, and that should be assessed before any investment is made, not the cause of the loss.” Advisers are often similarly united in believing in the need for investment solutions to take a back seat to the financial planning process. “Risk-targeted funds, multi-manager funds and risk-rated funds are just ‘stuff’,” says Goldsmith. Whether for lower-end clients or as a core part of their proposition, advisers are often finding risk-targeted funds – when used correctly – to be a cost-effective and appropriate solution, which frees up more of their time for financial planning.
‘Generally [the use of these funds] tends to be for clients who don't often need as much touch in their service’
Research by Invesco in September 2018 found more than half – 56 per cent – of advisers at the time were using risk-targeted funds. These comprised a third of their assets under advice. Of those using the funds, the research found 98 per cent intended to maintain or increase their use. Mark James is the client relationships director and co-founder of Square Mile Investment Consulting and Research. Tasked with speaking to many advisers, he stresses he comes across many business models. He says he has found advisers historically tended to use risk-targeted funds for their mass-market clients, but Square Mile now finds they are used across the board for lots of different types of client.
For risk-targeted fund enthusiast Paul Lindfield, these can be the well-researched, cost-efficient funds that make up the core of his CIP. The Stratagem Financial Planning director says risk-targeted multi-asset funds can be best placed to suit both clients’ needs and advisers’ roles and expertise. “We don't believe in fund picking; we don't believe in building our own model portfolios,” he says. “We are firmly financial planners, so we do the planning, we find the right products, we find the right investment solutions, and we help the client achieve their goals within the right risk parameters, timeframes and everything else.” This means, although his firm reviews client portfolios weekly, it does not physically assess the funds or solutions, whose assessment by their managers can vary from daily to quarterly. This enables the firm’s planners to get on with their financial planning work. Stratagem also uses managed portfolio services, including active, passive and hybrid solutions, from a number of managers. Lindfield says one of his choices often provides a “typical UK stockmarket-picking investment strategy, typically 30 per cent UK”. Another, he says, has a very different style and is, for example, very good at agriculture. Its cautious range, he adds, did well at the worst of the fall this year – down 6.5 per cent compared with a sector average of around 18-21 per cent. The firm uses Financial Express Analytics to assess these daily, and to see whether blending funds may be appropriate in certain situations. “What we also assess through FE is not only the composition and whether to blend, but also risk-adjusted returns versus benchmark versus peers,” says Lindfield. “This allows us to map because we'll then look at performance and say ‘Actually, that isn't that great.’ “But when you look at the risk-adjusted returns they might take the risk off the table and you can really see. That's a powerful exercise and we do show clients that.”
FE Analytics feeds in to Stratagem’s other processes – Distribution Technology, Intelligent Office, Dynamic Planner and CashCalc – which Lindfield sees as another benefit, particularly the ability to marry these up with cashflow modelling. “We have a cashflow model, and we use sequential gains and losses. Say we look at the average for a cautious, balanced or adventurous: we can test and assess on a cashflow whether they will actually achieve the goals on that risk, within that risk parameter. And we can see whether they need to increase or decrease the risk to achieve the goals, or amend the goals,” he says. Ultimately, using risk-targeted funds reduces the risk of drift and liquidity issues, says Lindfield. “There's a lot of inherent risks in the traditional ways of managing money,” he says. “So we look at risk-targeted multi-asset solutions because we know they will stay within their risk parameter, within their volatility, and that will suit our client’s capacity for loss if we've had the true discussion with them, which we would have.”
“It could be those with less than £100,000 of assets, or a family member of someone in a higher bracket. But generally speaking it tends to be for clients who don't often need as much touch in their service and are happy to have one fund from one particular fund group, so they may only be reviewing it on an annual basis and don't want anything bespoke,” he says. Because they are more simply managed and tend to be less complex, these funds can be cheaper than model portfolios, says James. They also may not incur discretionary fees if bought on an advisory basis. Passive options too are increasingly popular with advisers and can be another way of keeping an eye on cost. For their higher-net-worth and core clients, James says advisers tend to use bespoke services and managed or advised portfolio services respectively. “What you can't do is all of a sudden give [lower-end clients] the type of service you'd give someone with a couple of million quid, because one of the key things with a CIP is it has to create efficiencies. And, whatever you say about [risk-targeted] funds, they're efficient. “You put money in there, you monitor them from time to time, and they don't need an awful lot of looking after because the fund manager is looking after the risk and looking after where the assets go.”
‘There is a place for risk-targeted funds, but in my opinion they are being misused’
With increasing emphasis on the value of the financial planning part of the advice process, and rapidly changing global markets, risk-targeted funds can be simple, cost-effective solutions for many clients. How are advisers incorporating them into their recommendations? Where can they fit in modern centralised investment propositions?
“The times I have seen balanced managed, cautious managed and adventurous managed in the same portfolio, particularly from a famous integrated firm, makes me groan with disbelief. “If a client has been assessed as a particular risk profile, there is enough technology available to advisers to create a CIP using well-researched and cost-efficient funds, suitable to identify the client’s capacity for loss in a transparent and financially efficient process.”
Goldsmith Financial Solutions founder Hannah Goldsmith agrees these types of fund can provide low-cost solutions for investors with small amounts of money. But, she says, when used incorrectly, they can be costly, lack transparency and constitute lazy investing. “There is a place for [risk-target] funds, but in my opinion they are being misused,” she says.
Future fit funds: Are risk-targeted offerings covering all bases?
Q&A with Tim Orton, Managing Director, Investment Solutions, Aegon
That’s a good question and something we explored at length while developing our new Risk-Managed Portfolios. Having spoken to many advisers, we know that they value the fact that these funds let their clients access a diversified portfolio in a single fund. Being clear on how each solution is aligned to the client’s risk appetite is also key. From a regulatory perspective, defining a clear target market is no longer a nice-to-have. Providers like us must ensure their funds are transparent with comprehensive reporting, and that they’re easy to use and understand. The regulator is quite clear that end investors should understand what they’re investing in – as an industry, I don’t think we’ve made that very easy in the past. Not surprisingly, cost is also high up the list – or more accurately value-for-money. Advisers are keen to avoid higher charges if there’s little evidence of improved outcomes. Over the long term, fund charges can have a big impact on outcomes for clients, so it’s no wonder it’s a key consideration.
I don’t think there is a big difference in the level of demand here. In fact, in many cases clients and their advisers favour a consistent investment approach across pensions, ISAs, and general savings. That’s part of the reason why our new Risk-Managed Portfolios are available as a multi-wrapper OEICs, allowing savers investment consistency across pension and ISA savings.
How does demand for these types of funds compare for a pension versus an ISA investor?
With the increasing attention around PROD rules, we have seen a lot of CIPs being reviewed and revised of late. A single fund or model range proposition does not fit all audiences, and so we’re starting to see CIPs with multiple solutions, designed to meet the needs of different client segments. Risk-targeted multi-asset funds work well with this. They’re easy to align with client objectives and risk appetites, and they appeal to a number of different types of savers: those at different stages in their savings journey; cost-conscious clients with smaller savings pots; and investors with larger pots who prefer the simplicity of a single portfolio that could meet all or most of their needs, for example.
Can they fit efficiently into centralised investment or retirement propositions?
'Advisers are keen to avoid higher charges if there’s little evidence of improved outcomes'
We’ve talked about the need for CIPs to be flexible, avoiding the one-size-fits-all trap. Risk-targeted funds are a key part of this, but for platforms it’s all about delivering choice. Advisers know their business – and their clients – best. Our platforms aim to complement advisers’ business models by catering for a wide variety of client investment needs. This means providing a broad choice of investments and the tools needed to build appropriate client portfolios. Risk-targeted ranges are just one part of that mix.
What are the most important considerations for advisers choosing a risk-targeted fund?
What's behind their growth in recent years?
Since the RDR, we have seen that advisers increasingly want to focus on financial planning, rather than fund picking. Advisers have also looked for cost-effective, efficient solutions to retain clients with relatively modest savings. With risk-targeted multi-asset funds, it became possible to reduce costs for their customers and for their businesses, while maintaining a robust investment process. This is possible because it’s essentially outsourcing investment elements such as risk management, asset allocation and fund selection to specialist providers. More recently, regulations such as product governance rules and Mifid II have emphasised the importance of factors such as suitability, monitoring, transparency, and value-for-money. For many advisers, outsourcing to a single-fund proposition is proving an effective and efficient solution.
“From a regulatory perspective, defining a clear target market is no longer a nice-to-have”
As Managing Director of Aegon’s investment solutions, Tim is responsible for running Aegon UK’s investment business, including all aspects of investment proposition, operations, and governance across its workplace and retail businesses. Tim has held a number of senior roles in the investments, life, and pensions industry over the last two decades. Most recently, as Managing Director of savings, Tim ran the Aviva Platform building it into one of the biggest selling Platforms in the UK. Tim is a qualified Actuary.
Tim Orton
Does the performance and service justify the costs?
Certainly not for all providers’ products. There are hundreds of multi-asset type variations, all supposedly with the same main drivers for investors: growth and/or income within a defined risk level. Yet the funds vary in complexity and therefore cost. Our approach with these funds is that anything that results in extra cost should only be added where the additional benefits are clear. So, we have chosen to hold underlying passive investments as we believe this offers an efficient, cost-effective approach for investors focussed on value. But the Risk-Managed Portfolios do use active asset allocation to manage risk and help aid returns, because we believe this offers demonstrable benefits. The portfolios also avoid using alternatives, as these can tend to add more expense than is justified by the additional diversification such investments may offer. Doing this means we can offer the portfolios for a fixed OCF of just 0.25 per cent, significantly below the average for a risk-targeted multi-asset portfolio with active asset allocation, risk-management and governance built in.
Is investment complexity in multi-asset solutions an issue?
In short, yes – and it’s something that’s been identified by the regulators, who are clear that clients need to understand what they’re investing their savings in. That’s easier said than done for some strategies, especially those which invest in alternative assets or use complex derivative-based strategies.
Complexity is by no means a bad thing, so long as it adds demonstrable benefits over the long term and can be understood by an investor. We mustn’t forget that a sizeable proportion of investors choose not to invest in stocks and shares at all, preferring the safety of bank accounts, so the importance of a straightforward and engaging proposition, focussed on offering value for money, should not be underestimated.
Are platforms up to scratch when dealing with risk-targeted ranges?
Of course. Just as technology is always improving, so are investment solutions. Regulation, along with adviser and client demand, is driving a need for value-focused, effective solutions. Some ranges of funds that are now exposed to new disclosure regimes are starting to look expensive and increasingly hard to justify.
Is there space in the market for more offerings?
The volume of investible assets in the market will continue to grow, and with this I believe the role of multi-asset funds will grow, sitting alongside and complementing other strategies. Technology, regulation and an ever-increasing onus on value-based decision-making will undoubtedly influence the shape of solutions. Nevertheless, carefully developed, ready-to-use solutions catering for a broad range of risk preferences will undoubtedly help meet the savings needs of many.
How do you see the market for these types of funds evolving over the next 5-10 years?
Managing Director, Investment Solutions
Q&A
Click for Tim's bio
Close
The value of investments may go down as well as up and investors may get back less than they invest. There’s no guarantee that fund objectives will be met.
In my years of experience working in this industry, I’ve noticed there’s a tendency to overcomplicate fund design. At Aegon, we’ve managed multi-asset strategies for more than 35 years, and the principle of keeping it simple is something we wanted to build on with our new multi-asset range – the Risk-Managed Portfolios.
Over half of UK investors choose not to invest in stocks and shares at all¹, preferring to keep their money in a bank account. The complexity of funds may be a contributing factor. As such, there is a benefit in offering investment strategies that can be easily understood by a client, and where they can feel comfortable that they know what to expect. Designed with the client in mind, the Risk-Managed Portfolios are a simpler way to invest. The six portfolios cater for a broad range of risk preferences; and are easy to use and explain. They’re also available across pension, ISA and GIAs –so clients can invest in the same funds, whatever wrapper is required.
Until recently I believed that the term, KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), was just an overused acronym dreamt up by some clever management consultant in the 1990s, but in actual fact, its origins go back further than that. KISS is a design principle attributed to the Chief Engineer working on the SR-71 BlackBird spy plane in the 1960s, who told his team that whatever they made had to be simple enough for a man in the field to repair with basic mechanics training and tools. It’s a principle that’s been used extensively, and with significant success, in the years since.
In a paper that can be found on our website, we’ve explored the drivers of investment performance and assessed which design features have – and crucially those that haven’t – historically added value. Here, I’d like to summarise the findings and how we’ve applied them to the Risk-Managed Portfolios – our new multi-asset OEICs, designed for investors who are focussed on growing long-term savings while maximising value for money.
This is good practice, in my view, for portfolio builders too. Complexity can add cost, so it should only be added where it offers demonstrable benefits. Complexity also has a tendency to put people off investing altogether when they don’t understand it.
1. Complexity can put investors off investing altogether
We believe strategic asset allocation can strike a balance between static funds – at the mercy of market cycles – and more expensive tactical funds. For the Risk-Managed Portfolios, we focus on how markets are valued relative to long-term future expectations. This provides greater conviction in the asset allocations created. So, while we regularly review the asset mix, changes are typically only made when there are fundamental shifts in the markets, or when rebalancing is required. The aim is to take advantage of market gains while keeping costs low.
2. Active asset allocation can add value, provided the balance is right
As the chart to the left illustrates, we found that multi-asset funds mainly using passive components generally delivered better net returns for the level of risk taken, as shown by the passive trendline being above the active line. This was partly because active funds found it harder to outperform passive in mature and efficient developed markets like the US and UK, both of which are likely to have high weightings in portfolios. Passive funds are also a cost-effective way to access markets. Not surprisingly, our new Risk-Manged Portfolios use mainly passive component funds.
3. Passive components can provide better risk-adjusted returns
Many multi-asset funds, such as the more complex absolute return strategies, use a wide range of alternative investments, such as commercial property, commodities and derivatives. The aim of course is to improve diversification, dampening volatility and enhancing returns, but recent history suggests that they don’t always justify the complexity and costs involved, especially for investors with a long-term investment horizon where growth is key. As the chart below shows, absolute return funds have had a lower drawdown during the recent market turbulence compared to multi-asset funds with passive components, but over the long-term have experienced less growth and muted recovery in recent months. Moreover, these types of funds are inevitably harder for clients to understand. Keeping it simple, the Risk-Managed Portfolios focus on equities, bonds and cash.
4. Alternative assets don’t always add value
The asset allocation strategy, stock selection approach and complexity of assets, all have an impact on cost. And cost can have a significant impact on the eventual pay out for investors. For example, over 25 years, a £100,000 investment in the FTSE All World Index with a charge of 0.25% would have returned over £90,000 more than exactly the same investment if it had cost 0.80%.² Our simpler way to invest means the Risk-Managed Portfolios offer a client-focused range of funds that include strategic asset allocation, risk management and governance, all for a fixed OCF of 0.25%, with transaction costs expected to be low.
Read the full ‘Value through simplicity’ paper
Find out more about the Risk-Managed Portfolios
All charts are for illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guide to future returns. The value of investments can go down as well as up and investors may get back less than the amount invested. There’s no guarantee that fund objectives will be met.
We understand that client segmentation is key and investment solutions that may be more complex and expensive have a role to play with certain objectives and groups of investors. For those segments where cost is key though, we believe keeping it simple can lead to improved client engagement, and ultimately better outcomes for customers.
5. Fund charges have a significant impact on the customer outcome
Why Aegon’s Risk-Managed Portfolios ‘keep it simple stupid’
By Richard Whitehall, Head of Portfolio Management, Aegon
Source: FE Analytics. Targeted Absolute Return funds are IA Targeted Absolute Return sector funds with full five years’ performance. Multi-asset with passive components funds are taken from the IA Mixed Investment 20-60% and IA Mixed Investment 40-85% (the two largest mixed investment sectors). Non-hedged funds only and cheapest share classes shown. Figures in £s on a bid-to-bid basis, net of charges shown with gross income reinvested to 30 June 2020.
Source: Morningstar Direct. Two groups are taken from funds in the IA Mixed Investment 20-60% Shares and IA Mixed Investment 40-85% Shares sectors. Figures in £s on a bid-to-bid basis, net of charges shown with gross income reinvested to 30 June 2020.
Important information 1 Source: BlackRock Investor Pulse Survey 2019, based on 27,000 respondents over 13 nations in July and August 2018. ² Source: Morningstar Direct. Figures in £s on a bid-to-bid basis, net of charges shown with gross income reinvested to 30 June 2020. All charts are for illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guide to future returns. The value of investments can go down as well as up and investors may get back less than the amount invested. Risk-Managed Portfolios information as at July 2020. There’s no guarantee that fund objectives will be met. Link Fund Solutions Limited (LF) is the authorised corporate director of the portfolios. They’re responsible for their operation in accordance with the regulations. For more information and fund-specific risks, see the Key Investor Information Documents, available on our website. Aegon is a brand name of Aegon Investments Limited (LF Aegon OEIC funds), Scottish Equitable plc (Aegon insured pension-only funds and off-platform insured products), Aegon Investment Solutions Ltd (Aegon Retirement Choices, One Retirement and Retiready), and Cofunds Limited (the Aegon Platform). Aegon Investments Limited (No. 10654248) and Cofunds Limited (No. 03965289) are registered in England and Wales, registered office: Level 43 The Leadenhall Building, 122 Leadenhall Street, London EC3V 4AB. Scottish Equitable plc (No. SC144517) and Aegon Investment Solutions Ltd (No. SC394519) are registered in Scotland, registered office: Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9SE. All are Aegon companies. Scottish Equitable plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Aegon Investments Limited, Cofunds Limited and Aegon Investment Solutions Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Their Financial Services Register numbers are 165548, 788212, 194734 and 543123 respectively. © 2020 Aegon UK plc
This document is for intermediaries only and is not for consumer use. All charts are for illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guide to future returns. The value of investments can go down as well as up and investors may get back less than the amount invested. Risk-Managed Portfolios information as at July 2020. There’s no guarantee that fund objectives will be met. Link Fund Solutions Limited (LF) is the authorised corporate director of the portfolios. They’re responsible for their operation in accordance with the regulations. For more information and fund-specific risks, see the Key Investor Information Documents, available on our website. Aegon is a brand name of Aegon Investments Limited (LF Aegon OEIC funds), Scottish Equitable plc (Aegon insured pension-only funds and off-platform insured products), Aegon Investment Solutions Ltd (Aegon Retirement Choices, One Retirement and Retiready), and Cofunds Limited (the Aegon Platform). Aegon Investments Limited (No. 10654248) and Cofunds Limited (No. 03965289) are registered in England and Wales, registered office: Level 43 The Leadenhall Building, 122 Leadenhall Street, London EC3V 4AB. Scottish Equitable plc (No. SC144517) and Aegon Investment Solutions Ltd (No. SC394519) are registered in Scotland, registered office: Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, EH12 9SE. All are Aegon companies. Scottish Equitable plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Aegon Investments Limited, Cofunds Limited and Aegon Investment Solutions Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Their Financial Services Register numbers are 165548, 788212, 194734 and 543123 respectively. © 2020 Aegon UK plc
Aegon – Important information
Terms of Service ‘Money Marketing’ is owned and operated by Metropolis Financial Platforms Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales (company number 06439194) with its registered office at 7th Floor, Vantage London, Great West Road, Brentford, England, TW8 9AG. All references to “We”, “Us” and “MFP” below are to Metropolis Financial Platforms Ltd. These Terms govern your use of the Content (as defined) below and our liability in relation to the Content. 1. Intellectual Property Rights 1.1—We are the owner or licensee of all copyright, trademarks, designs and other intellectual property rights that may subsist in these works (including all information, data and graphics in them) (the “Content”). We shall retain ownership of the Content at all times, and the publication of this Content does not operate to transfer any new or existing intellectual property rights that may subsist in the Content away from MFP. 1.2—Parts of the Content may be jointly developed by MFP and our commercial sponsor, and such jointly developed Content is ultimately owned by our commercial sponsor. These Terms apply equally to Content owned by our commercial sponsor and Content owned by Us. 1.3—You must not copy, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, transmit, distribute, publish, summarise, adapt, paraphrase or otherwise publicly display any Content in any manner whatsoever, whether by manual or automated means, without the prior written consent of MFP. 1.4—Under no circumstance is MFP Content to be used in the course of any trade, business, craft, profession or any other commercial activity. 2. Provision of Content to You 2.1—This Content is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of this Content. 2.2—Although we make reasonable efforts to update Content, we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that this Content is accurate, complete or up to date. 2.3—Any opinions, analysis or ratings provided in MFP Content are as understood by MFP and our commercial sponsor and their group companies at the date they are published and are not recommendations to purchase, hold or sell any investment or to make any investment decision. This Content does not purport to assess the suitability of any investment for any specific purposes or requirements and should not be relied upon as the basis of any investment decision. 2.4—You acknowledge that persons who do not have professional experience in participating in unregulated collective investment schemes should not rely on material relating to such schemes and past performance of investments is not necessarily a guide to future performance, prices of investments may fall as well as rise. 3. Exclusion of Warranty 3.1—We are not liable for the Content being up-to-date, accurate or complete. 3.2—You acknowledge and agree that the Content is provided on an “as is” and “as available” basis, without representation or endorsement of any kind and is obtained at your own risk. 3.3—MFP excludes all representations, warranties, conditions or other terms whether express or implied (by statute common law collaterally or otherwise) in relation to the Content to the maximum extent permitted by law, including without limitation any implied warranties as to satisfactory quality and/or fitness for purpose. 4. Our Liability 4.1—We will not be liable in contract, tort (including negligence) or otherwise for any liability, damage, loss, penalties, expenses or costs (including legal and other professional costs) (whether direct, indirect, consequential special or otherwise) incurred or suffered by you or any third party in connection with this Content or in connection with the use of MFP Content, save for any liability for fraudulent misrepresentation or for death or personal injury arising from MFP’s negligence. 4.2—If you are a consumer, nothing in these Terms will affect your legal rights under English law. 5. Law and Jurisdiction These terms are governed by and shall be construed with the laws of England and Wales and the Courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any dispute in connection with the Content or with these terms.
Money Marketing Disclaimer
Sponsored by