≡ Menu
Vanguard enables UK investors to invest directly in its funds post image

Should you see a worker in the financial services sector kicking a wall today, or muttering slowly whilst tearing up a newspaper, or taking off their shoes and walking into the sea, Reggie Perrin style, then spare a thought (and perhaps a few coppers) for the poor dabs.

Because fund giant Vanguard – famed for its cheap trackers and its all-in-one LifeStrategy products – is now enabling UK investors to invest in its own funds directly.

This means we can now put money into its funds without having to use a third-party platform such as Hargreaves Lansdown.

And with Hargreaves’ shares having fallen as much as 5% on the news, City traders seem to believe Vanguard’s launch will spark a renewed price war.

Which is nice – for us investors, anyway. Not so good for rivals.

  • Vanguard says it will levy an annual fee of 0.15% on up to £250,000 invested with it.
  • There will be no account fee on the excess above £250,000.
  • The platform fee is thus capped at £375 a year for even the largest portfolios.
  • The minimum lump sum investment is £500. Monthly savings start at £100 a month.
  • There are no initial or dealing charges, and no cost levied by Vanguard for transfers in.

Vanguard’s 0.15% platform fee will levied be on top of the ongoing charges that you pay for whatever Vanguard funds you own.

For example, if you opened your Vanguard account by investing £20,000 into its 60% LifeStrategy fund, you’ll pay:

Fund charge of 0.22% x £20,000 = £44

Account fee of 0.15% x £20,000 = £30

Total annual fee = £74

Some Vanguard funds boast even lower fees. For instance, its FTSE 100 Index Unit Trust charges just 0.06%. So £20,000 invested into that fund on the Vanguard platform would cost a total annual levy of 0.21%, or £42 a year.

Vanguard is currently offering ISAs and non-ISA accounts, but no SIPP. It plans to add a SIPP option to the platform “within the next year”.

The new Vanguard site has the website address www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk. (Vanguard says it will eventually retire its existing UK website).

The FAQ is pretty comprehensive, if you have any particular questions.

The Vanguard platform looks hard-to-beat cheap

Vanguard is not the first fund provider to enable us to invest directly into its funds without using a platform.

For instance, I’ve held a small proportion of my portfolio directly in Legal & General tracker funds for many years. (And no, it’s not cheapest! Even us investment bloggers have our foibles. Besides, I favour platform diversification).

But Vanguard’s offering is more transparent (and cheaper) than Legal & General’s, as fans of the US group would expect.

With Legal & General you pay much higher ongoing charges than with some competitor trackers, but there’s no platform fee. In contrast, Vanguard is explicitly breaking out the platform fee. This enables you to compare costs more directly.

The big question then: How do those costs compare with the others you’ll find in our comparison table?

Well, I’m not the Monevator expert on platform charges. Also, anyone who has tried to navigate the nightmare of comparing one particular portfolio invested on a particular platform with another platform knows there can be more quirks, hidden corners, and labyrinthine passages than you’d find in a medieval city.

Caveats and costs lurk around every corner!

That said, I believe Vanguard’s new offer looks pretty darn compelling.

For those wanting to hold Vanguard funds it looks substantially cheaper to do so directly via its new investment platform than via a percentage-fee charging rival.

For fixed-fee brokers, it could still be cheaper to go with one of the alternatives if you have a large portfolio. You’ll have to run your own numbers.

But for small portfolios of Vanguard funds, going direct again looks cheapest.

Holding Vanguard ETFs with rivals instead of Vanguard funds1 with Vanguard could also be cheaper for some investors with large portfolios.

For instance, our table notes that AJ Bell caps its quarterly platform fee for shares (including ETFs) at a maximum of £7.50 for an ISA, or £25 for a SIPP. That means platform charges are capped at £30 and £100 a year respectively.

Do remember that’s before ETF dealing fees and the ongoing charges on your Vanguard ETFs. Still, there could be savings to be had on larger portfolios.

Low cost barbarians at the gate

To be honest it’d be nice to find some bigger holes to poke in this new Vanguard platform.

You see, for our lauding its cheap funds – and for celebrating the pressure it puts on the wider industry to drive down costs – we’ve been accused in the past of being a sneaky Vanguard promotional site.

In reality, Vanguard has never even advertised with us. And it didn’t care to send us a press release to announce its new service.

Ho hum.

Fact is though, with this very competitively priced platform, Vanguard is likely to provide massive disruption to the incumbents.

While we like to argue the toss between this and that tracker fund, the average person would do fine just investing in Vanguard’s cheap passive offerings, or even its all-in-one options such as LifeStrategy and its target date funds.

Heck, it even has (low cost) active funds if you really must.

Rivals have some thinking to do. The lack of a Vanguard SIPP account at launch gives them some breathing space there. Some may be able to find a niche serving harder-to-please clients, such as expat investors.

But most are probably going to fall back on star active fund managers and heavy advertising to try to keep the Vanguard threat at bay. They should be aided in this by rival fund groups, who have just as much to lose from Vanguard gobbling up yet more market share.

Low-cost rival platforms are in trouble because they’re not cheap enough. Higher-cost offerings touting wunderkind active funds have the flow of history against them. Only a handful of these platforms were making good profits to begin with.

Monevator readers are in clover!

Finally, one of my spies in The City has sent in this documentary footage of the kerfuffle that the launch has already kicked off. (Sensitive readers should look away now).

  1. That is, unit trusts aka mutual funds aka OEICS. []
{ 99 comments }

Weekend reading: Just the links, ma’am

Weekend reading: Just the links, ma’am post image

Articles and ideas that caught my eye this week.

The big mistake is thinking they know when to buy and sell stocks,” Buffett says with a chuckle. “That there are times to buy ’em and times to sell ’em. There’s times to buy ’em. And eventually maybe, when you decide to start dis-saving when you’re 70 or 80 years of age or something of the sort, at that time you may sell ’em. But basically any attempts to pick the times to buy or sell, I think, are a mistake for 99% of the population. And I think that even attempts to pick individual securities is a mistake for people.” – Yahoo

[continue reading…]

{ 15 comments }

Dividends are not guaranteed

Dividends are not guaranteed post image

I recently spent some time teaching corporate finance to MBA students at a local university. I found it an invaluable experience (my students may disagree!) as it required me to review the finance basics I learned years ago and then figure out ways to teach them to others.

During our class discussion on equities, we compared and contrasted dividends with bond interest.

One advantage of dividends versus bond interest is that dividends can increase over time, providing an inflation hedge to your income stream.

As the legendary fund manager, Peter Lynch put it in his book Beating the Street:

Whereas companies routinely reward their shareholders with higher dividends, no company in the history of finance, going back as far as the Medicis, has rewarded its bondholders by raising the interest rate on a bond…

The most a bondholder can expect is to get his or her principal back, after its value has been shrunk by inflation.

On the other hand, dividends, unlike interest, are not a contractual obligation and investors have no recourse if a dividend is cut.

The company’s board of directors and executives periodically decide on how much of a payout the business can sustain. If the company needs cash or is concerned it can’t afford the payout, a dividend cut can occur.

Out of the blue

To illustrate, I bought shares of Pfizer in July 2008 when it had a dividend yield of 6.9%.

Sure, I conceded, there were concerns about patent cliffs, but it had increased its payout for 40 consecutive years, had recently boosted its payout by 10%, and had an AAA credit rating. As far as dividend pedigree goes, Pfizer was near the top of the charts. It seemed like a classic value play.

In January 2009, however, Pfizer halved its dividend to help finance its mega-acquisition of rival Wyeth. In one fell swoop, Pfizer’s board erased four decades of its stellar dividend track record and was no longer a so-called dividend aristocrat.

Thankfully, the amount lost was manageable, and the experience served as a lesson that no matter the track record, balance sheet, or even management’s reassurances, no dividend is guaranteed. Each company has a breaking point.

Past and future

It’s easy to forget the pain of dividend cuts when the markets are sanguine. The cuts we endured during the financial crisis have since drifted further in the rear view mirror. But eventually we’ll run into them again.

What will bring about the next round of mass dividend cuts is impossible to predict, but the rapid pace of innovation and competitive disruption is a trend that I believe will not go away anytime soon:

  • Traditionally ‘safe’ low beta consumer staples firms are facing volume pressure as consumers increase online spending.
  • Private label brands have become more comparable in product quality and undercut branded names on price.
  • Integrated energy companies will need to reckon with dramatically lower costs for renewable energy and innovations in electric vehicles.

It’s difficult to conclude that any broad industry is as defensive as it once was. And, by extension, there are probably no industries where cash flows and therefore dividends are automatically well-protected today.

Tall order

So, what can you do as an individual investor to reduce the risk of a shocking dividend cut?

Here are three strategies to consider.

Mind the pace of industry change: Imagine trying to become a chess master if the rules changed every year. Instead of an 8×8 board, now it’s a 16×16 board. Now the king can move like a queen. And so on. It would be very difficult to build skill in such a setting.

Similarly, CEOs and CFOs in rapidly-changing industries can struggle to create enduring value when the competitive landscape is always morphing. Such companies must invest increasing amounts in capital expenditures and research and development just to keep pace. Few executives are suited for this challenge, and the growth furnace is fed with cash flow that would otherwise have been earmarked for dividends.

Instead, dividend investors are best served researching companies in industries with low asset growth, tiny shifts in market share, and where technological innovations are either a small issue or, better yet, can be used to the industry’s advantage via productivity growth.

Keep an eye on free cash flow: Over time, dividends must be funded by free cash flow1. Sure, companies can temporarily finance dividends with debt or asset sales, but eventually the bill comes due.

If you notice a company’s free cash flow cover2 trending below 1.5 times, it is time to ask some questions. Is the company running out of growth opportunities? Is the diminished cover due to revenue or margin pressure? If so, what’s causing it to occur?

Slowing dividend growth can be another sign that the board is concerned about future cash flow generation. When Tesco slammed the brakes on its dividend growth in 2012, it was a red flag that the board confidence was shaky.

Get some culture: Eastman Kodak is the poster child of fallen blue chip dividend payers. Many people point to the rise of digital photography as Kodak’s downfall, but, in fact, Kodak recognized the trend toward digital in plenty of time.

Kodak’s issue – and what likely sealed its fate – was a culture of complacency that prevented the company from being in the vanguard of the digital photography revolution.3

Are the companies you own culturally able to adapt to new challenges? It’s not an easy answer, particularly if you don’t work at the firm, but it’s one worth investigating.

These days, this is possible with sites like Glassdoor, where you can read employee reviews of the company. Local business newspapers can also be a valuable resource. If a company is a great place to work or is doing something unique, there are good odds that a local business journalist has covered the story.

You can also see if there are YouTube interviews with company leaders. What is their demeanor?

Finally, see how management reacted to changes in the past. Were they defensive on the conference call following a bad quarter or did they admit a mistake and outline plans for fixing it?

Whenever I speak with a company executive, culture is the first topic that I bring up. You’d be amazed how few companies have a good and enthusiastic response to this question. As such, pulling the thread on culture is worth your research time.

If the company can’t adapt to industry changes, the long-term viability of the dividend should be a concern.

Keep your eyes open for dividend cuts

A dividend investor’s job is to be ever vigilant. Even companies with distinguished track records and healthy balance sheets can take a turn for the worse in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

The earlier we identify trouble spots in our research, the more likely we’ll be able to preserve our capital and income.

Todd Wenning, CFA is an equity analyst based in the United States. Opinions shared here are his own and not those of his employer. A full disclaimer can be found here. For compliance purposes, Todd cannot reply to comments below, though he welcomes any correspondence sent by email. You can read Todd’s expanding collection of dividend articles here on Monevator or check out his book, Keeping Your Dividend Edge.

  1. That is, cash flow left over after the company reinvests in the business. []
  2. Free cash flow/dividend. []
  3. See Barriers To Change: The Real Reason Behind The Kodak Downfall on Forbes. []
{ 7 comments }

Don’t forget your can opener

Why do you want to escape the rat race?

Believe it or not, Monevator is a blog about securing financial freedom.

Originally it was focused on retiring early, but during a sabbatical I discovered I missed doing good work for money, provided it was on my own terms.

Nowadays I think I’ll always do something, even into my old age – and even if I don’t really need the money.

I enjoy half of what I do a lot, and I’d enjoy it even more if it was optional. I also suspect there are social and health benefits to staying engaged with the economy – provided you like what you’re doing.

(Hate your job? Quit today).

But you might want out of the game altogether. I hope our articles can help you either way.

I’m perfectly agnostic about how you plan to use your financial freedom.

I imagine most readers want more time back, or an income stream to support other ambitions. Or maybe you do want to retire very early, or perhaps you want to downsize with security, or travel, or write novels, or breed rare goats.

Do you want to make a million? You can stick around, too.

Perhaps you want the financial freedom to sell ice-creams on a beach in Bali on the minimum wage while living the higher-rolling lifestyle back at home, funded out of your savings and investments.

Material goals aren’t my cup of tea, but each to his or her own.

Looking to the end game

I began with ‘believe it or not’ because Monevator’s ultimate motivation – securing financial freedom – gets lost day-to-day in the minutia of our posts about everything from passive investing and global trackers to retirement income and investor psychology.

Some blogs are good at keeping their message up-front, which is handy for newcomers. Maybe I need to try harder, but there’s so much else to talk about – especially for UK investors and spare room entrepreneurs. We don’t have as many options to choose from as our US brethren.

Yet the danger is Monevator looks like a site about making money for it’s own sake. And that’s a danger that can affect your own investing, too.

Here’s a fairy tale to explain what I mean.

A very pessimistic person – the type you find writing comments in CAPITALS on Web forums – decides to prepare for the breakdown of civilisation.

He sells his portfolio, his house, his car, and even his iPad, which he rightly suspects won’t be much use when he’s hiding in a cave from cannibals.

Just before money becomes entirely useless, however, he spends his last savings on the usual post-society breakdown survival kit:

  • Gold coins
  • A shotgun
  • 5,000 cans of beans

A few months on, and society does collapse – just as our doomster predicted.

You might think he’s sitting pretty. And he would be, except for one vital oversight.

He forgot to buy a can opener!

Financial freedom and you

I hope you think of me in the endless dark nights after the fall of the West. Toast me as you tuck into your beans. Hold aloft your remembered can open.

Of course this isn’t really a post about surviving in a post-apocalyptic world of tinned food and bad breath.

Rather, it’s a reminder that you need to think about your own financial can opener.

If you don’t know what it is, then you could end up surrounded by pots of money and no clue how to use it – or even how you got there.

  • What are you investing for?
  • What is your plan to achieve financial freedom?
  • How will you know when you’ve achieved your goals?
  • What have you forgotten?

Remember Curt, the tin can millionaire who made a fortune scrounging for pennies but who lived like a tramp?

Perhaps he had found his can opener. Maybe the freedom of knowing he had money enabled him to live free of material concerns.

Lots of people condemned him. But was he so different from a Zen master who forsakes worldly cares, or the flower children of the 1960s? History salutes them as visionaries.

Then again, maybe Curt didn’t know what he wanted the money for.

Maybe he wasted his life collecting tin cans when he would have been happier island hopping in the Philippines, or teaching French in Africa, or painting in the Swiss Alps, instead of just stashing his cash in a vault beneath them.

I think that’s why people reacted so negatively to Curt’s story. He could have done anything, but it seems he chose to do nothing.

The world is full of opportunity, and pitfalls too. Don’t hoard assets for a future that may never come, or that you don’t want anyway. Don’t let anyone tell you the reason you’re seeking financial freedom isn’t the ‘right’ one.

Know where you’re going. And don’t forget your can opener.

{ 27 comments }