That's probably about right in terms of timing, thanks for that.

What that confirms is that a portfolio containing Vanguard LifeStrategy funds plus ETFs and/or ITs never once shows an accurate snaphot of any given day, as by the time it gets around to updating the VLS prices within the portfolio the ETFs and ITs are already trading a new price the following day.

The point you didn't mention, or avoided, was that the portfolio prices, seemingly held within the secure section of AJBell's website, lag behind those more up-to-date prices held in the public area of the website.

I guess we have to wait for an AJBell operative to arrive for work, have his first coffee of the day and a chat with colleagues about what he watched on TV the previous evening before he/she gets around to manually pressing an update button somewhere within the system. The wait for Friday's portfolio update will be sometime on Monday morning once daily trading has begun. So no accurate end-of-week snapshot exists either.

It may not bother those who don't pay much attention to their portfolios or don't really care until two weeks prior to retirement, but it sticks out like a sore thumb, to me.

yes

AJB have an issue around their data feeds. If you look at Fsmith on AJB you see the latest NAV but that is coming from Morningstar. AJB portfolio doesn't use that data - no idea where it comes from but the portfolio is always a day behind the truth.

It is a small thing but I find it really annoying. I like my portfolio valuation to be the value of my portfolio not something that is nearly right. just me being OCD.

and on the same topic


Why does AJB/Mstar quote XD dates for ITs but XD and pay dates for stock dividends.
Why do I have to confirm TWICE that I am a private investor before i can view an RNS
Why does AJB take weeks to notify on corporate actions? To be fair - if they are time sensitive they are good but I just received something about the PRU demerger that was three weeks old.

I don't wish this seemingly minor issue bestowed upon others, but there's a mild sense of relief knowing I'm not the only one who notices this issue and finds it annoying, and disappointing.

I'm probably a bit OCD too when it comes to the details. I keep regular logs on a spreadsheet with which I periodically create graphs etc.. I do that because I enjoy it. But the shine is definitely taken off knowing the data used is never actually correct.

It doesn't over inspire confidence in terms of them managing significant funds for investors when they can't even get figures which are openly available, even on their own website, to be represented within a customer's portfolio. It smells of sloppiness rather than anything else, but there's probably some lame excuse for it lurking somewhere. I look forward to reminding their support team again.

Markus please note!
OEIC dealing prices are NOT available at the time of placing a sale or purchase order.

Back in the 1970s, funds were dealt at PREVIOUS day's prices, but presumably some people gamed the system to take advantage of the change in prices that they knew would happen.

So these days, they are always dealt on a 'forward pricing basis', i.e. they take the order now, and the price per unit for your transaction is calculated at the NEXT future point in time that the underlying holdings are valued. Frustrating but fairer.

Join ShareSoc (even if only as an associate member) in order to see what the arguments are, and what the current weaknesses in the system are. They are rooting for change, and their arguments get stronger with each failed broking firm.

What I would like to see is a change in the law that forces platforms to act purely as agents for the customer. Instead of the platform or its subsidiary being the Legal Owner of the various holdings, these should be owned by the investor and held either by the Registrar or by the customer in a Crest account, with the platform simply arranging the buying and selling and paperwork for their client.

If this was a legal requirement, the platform bosses couldn't squeal and say it's not economic or not viable, they'd just have to comply or do something else for a living.

ISAs and SIPPs should be governed in this way, just as plain dealing accounts could be.

Why not write to your MP after reading what ShareSoc has to say, and say that you support its ideas and would ask the MP to lend his/her support too. At least they can't now say that they are too busy haggling over whether we are going to have brexit or not!