Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
BHMG - fees / charges on ii
+ Reply to discussion
Options
MrBatch
Posted: 07 January 2025 18:44:39(UTC)
#1

Joined: 22/02/2021(UTC)
Posts: 234
Hello ,

Anyone hold BHMG macro out there? ( especially on ii )

I got my 2023 statement of charges through and BHMG noted as

Ongoing charges 1.87%
Incidental costs 2.26%
Total 4.13%

OK I know its high cost to hold and assumed incidental is a performance fee on top of the ongoing running fee.

All ok except BHMG stated in their annual reports for 2023 that charges for the fund were

Company on going charges 1.59%
Master fund charges 0.57%
Performance fee - not charged
Total 2.16%

I contacted ii to query charges. Lots of bluster saying figures are correct and then eventually " our figures are correct but based on costs which are different from BHMG 2023 accounts!"

How is this .....? I only brought BHMG is 2023 so no overhang from earlier years.

I have asked simply for a detailed breakdown from ii of what charges were levied against my holding for the period.

I feel ii is responsible to detail costs correctly to help evaluate a holding and feel that should tally with the provider produced info ie annual accounts. Shouldn't it.... ??? They also mentioned differences due to premium/discount and different calculations based on NAV vs Share price. They bluntly say "there will be differences between our charge documents and what is published by the manufacturer!" What is the point of them telling you changes annually that are wrong. Does this extend to other things that you have to report on tax return - are they wrong as well ?

Any one else had charge issues like this where platform notes charges far higher than noted in the product general accounts.
Back to top Quote
Newbie
Posted: 07 January 2025 18:54:59(UTC)
#2

Joined: 31/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,816

Thanks: 6009 times
Was thanked: 7025 time(s) in 2602 post(s)
Perhaps it is due to the actual ongoing charges fluctuating year on year and the % being published was based on the previous years or on an going basis depending on the size of the fund. It could also be that in the reporting the actual £ and P was reported and then converted to % using a figure at a particular point in time,

As for why publish - because the FCA says it has to ! (and the fact that they want more customers). They want both £ and P along with % reported. Apparently it makes things clear (I assume that mud is clear to the FCA)

The standard AMC can be the only figure which can realistically have a chance of being close, all else is fluctuating in reality.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
1 user thanked Newbie for this post.
MrBatch on 07/01/2025(UTC)
MrBatch
Posted: 07 January 2025 19:18:12(UTC)
#3

Joined: 22/02/2021(UTC)
Posts: 234
@Newbie

All possible points but ii note the fees they report as charged were correct for 2023 in direct difference to what BHMG say was charged for the fund.

I try to track fees i pay across a portfolio - very hard if ii say 4.13%+ and the manufacturer says it was 2.16%.

What was really charged ?

Back to top Quote
ravedeath
Posted: 07 January 2025 20:37:04(UTC)
#4

Joined: 10/01/2024(UTC)
Posts: 229
MrBatch;330335 wrote:
@Newbie

All possible points but ii note the fees they report as charged were correct for 2023 in direct difference to what BHMG say was charged for the fund.

I try to track fees i pay across a portfolio - very hard if ii say 4.13%+ and the manufacturer says it was 2.16%.

What was really charged ?


Could this be tied in to the change around cost disclosure I wonder. I hold BHMG on ii, topped up yesterday. Clarity would be good but ii aren't going to skim so I would rely on BHMG themselves I think.
Back to top Quote
Jesse M
Posted: 07 January 2025 21:00:09(UTC)
#5

Joined: 30/12/2020(UTC)
Posts: 1,471

Thanks: 10262 times
Was thanked: 3794 time(s) in 1126 post(s)
Interim Report
The following table presents the Ongoing Charges for each share class of the Company for each of the six-month period

Company – Ongoing Charges 1.57%
Master Fund – Ongoing Charges 0.61%
Performance fees 0.00%
Ongoing Charges plus
performance fees 2.18%

Not sure where they get 4%+ from that you've been charged unless that is 6 month x 2

https://bhmacro.com/
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Jesse M for this post.
MrBatch on 07/01/2025(UTC)
MrBatch
Posted: 07 January 2025 22:02:51(UTC)
#6

Joined: 22/02/2021(UTC)
Posts: 234
Jesse M;330347 wrote:
Interim Report
The following table presents the Ongoing Charges for each share class of the Company for each of the six-month period

Company – Ongoing Charges 1.57%
Master Fund – Ongoing Charges 0.61%
Performance fees 0.00%
Ongoing Charges plus
performance fees 2.18%

Not sure where they get 4%+ from that you've been charged unless that is 6 month x 2

https://bhmacro.com/


Nope - ii quoted those charges for 2023 total year.

I dont mind the 4% charge if bhmg say that is what it is - fine they are an expensive fund and i know if they perform this will be the fees.

What i do mind is ii mis reporting fees. I have no idea what was actually charged but ii tell me ( they dont charge me but tell me ) what was deducted. Why the difference?What else are they mis reporting. It makes a mockery of fee reporting if your provider gives you wrong charges. I may sell if 4% for example as I'm outraged at such a fee, when in reality it was 2%.....
Back to top Quote
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets