Investment advice on behalf of a family member - do you?

[rollo19]

Thanks again - really good points. I hadn't yet thought about tax or exit fees, but they are potentially other wrinkles to consider.

It's a big responsibility managing someone else's money. Even though you may be very comfortable making your own investing decisions you have to err on the side of caution if doing so for someone else. That said, almost any sensible strategy will surely be better than going with SJP.

What are her income expectations, and does she expect to preserve any capital for estate planning, or is she happy running it down to (near) zero?

If it were me I suggest something splitting between a few simple strategy like:

1/3 into a vanilla 60/30/10 global stocks/bonds/gold portfolio
1/3 into a widows & orphans trust - either CGT and/or PNL
1/3 towards an annuity - she is at the age now where the benefits of an annuity are considerable given the increasing uncertainty over her remaining years

It's really difficult to predict. At the moment, with her dementia, she can live at home with some 'electronic' support, but there will come a time when she will have to move into supported living accommodation. Her income expectations/requirements are relatively modest now, but who knows what they might be in six, twelve or eighteen months' time. She's in Wales, so the cap on social care is unlikely to apply unless the WG come up with its own version. I don't doubt that the costs of a care home would erode that capital pretty quickly, so trying to maintain it as long as possible will be the key. She does have her house too, which is likely to be needed down the line. She's early/mid seventies so potentially 20+ years to consider.

I'm interested to know why you've suggested the strategy that you have. I guess I had in my mind that it would simply just be a Vanguard Lifestrategy - and probably the 100% equity one given the potential length of time that it will be invested for. My investing has mainly been in individual shares along the HYP principles and is relatively modest in value. Whilst I'm comfortable with that strategy for me, I certainly wouldn't be investing on that basis for her - so looking for safer, better diversified ITs instead. I was thinking Vanguard simply because of the low fees. I couldn't reliably pick which IT is going to outperform, and wouldn't really know where to start - so low fees with a globally renowned company seems the best option. An annuity seems like it would be a disaster - I don't know what £170k or so would buy a 7X year old woman, but I bet it's not much. I think flexibility to meet unpredictable care home fees - at least for the first few years would be far better than a modest annuity that wouldn't get close to what she needs when she does go into a care home.

But writing that has just given me another wobble. I'm struck that I'm proposing to advise someone else to move their entire life savings that they are going to need to fund their healthcare, yet I "wouldn't really know where to start" where to look for a fund.

Yet to do nothing would mean that SJP would continue to take the p*ss. The annual statement is worse than useless in explaining how the fees work - from what I can see, I think annual fee for existing investments is 2.23% - but this may exclude another 0.5% annual "maintenance charge". She's going to need all the money she has and it boils my blood that SJP would continue to exploit elderly, vulnerable people in that way.

That probably takes me back to finding a good whole of market IFA who can give some proper advice at a reasonable cost. Or is "good" and "IFA" a contradiction in terms? But even then - I can't believe that the initial fee will be less than 1% - that would be £5k to do little more than say, why don't you consider these ITs that may do better or worse than some others?

Is it possible to find out what she already holds with SJP and find similar funds with largely the same or similar holdings elsewhere that have lower charges? That way you'd not be increasing her risk just saving on fees. It might take a bit if work but I presume the SJP funds must produce annual reports with a fuĺl list of holdings, sectors and countires as other funds do.

You mention the ongoing charges are opaque but don't SJP have to produce an annual breakdown of the charges levied?

.

Yes, I've got the list and I guess I could try and find similar funds, but the descriptions are pretty vague "UK Equity", "Global High Yield Bond" etc etc (and there are a load of them). I also don't think that SJP has the "right" answer necessarily, so if I was to recommend, I would want to simplify it to something both understandable for me and my mother-in-law/wife/wife's brother.

Plenty to ponder - thanks again all.

[Alaric]

One line to take in arguing against SJP is that as a matter of principle it is not good to have an IFA who is also providing the funds because there is an obvious conflict of interest and inadequate competition on fees (hence the huge fees!).

SJP would no doubt like to be regarded as IFAs, but as far as I am aware their advice is restricted to the use of SJP products and funds. They demonstrate a pseudo level of independence by having funds branded and managed by well known external fund managers.

[airbus330]

I'm constantly amazed by how attached people get to SJP and the air of wealth that it creates around itself. I've had 2 conversations, one recently, with friends about their SJP investment charges. Absolutely not interested. The professional look and underwhelming, but mainly positive, performance is good enough for them to ignore the charges. I wonder how they'll feel when the eventual major correction happens. With the large size of the pot being discussed here, I wouldn't want the responsibility of offering advice, other than general noises of concern. I might, however, suggest, she takes a 2nd. opinion on her finances from a 2nd. FA.

[Aminatidi]

How do you balance "Move it all into a low cost wrapper that reflects her risk appetite (little)" with "Vanguard Lifestrategy - and probably the 100% equity one".

Respectfully whatever the view on IFA's or SJP I doubt either would suggest someone who has "little" risk appetite put all their assets in a 100% equity fund.

Apologies if I've misunderstood but if I haven't this seems very important.

[rollo19]

How do you balance "Move it all into a low cost wrapper that reflects her risk appetite (little)" with "Vanguard Lifestrategy - and probably the 100% equity one".

Respectfully whatever the view on IFA's or SJP I doubt either would suggest someone who has "little" risk appetite put all their assets in a 100% equity fund.

Apologies if I've misunderstood but if I haven't this seems very important.

I suppose that is reflective of her current portfolio, which is predominantly in equities. It is also reflective of a relative sizeable portfolio (which in the normal course should be able to ride market bumps) and with the need to generate maximum income. I see it (perhaps wrongly) as a lower risk equity investment.

But if we go down that route it is also one for further research, discussion and consideration - on reflection, it could easily be one of the others (or a different pre-made cheap fund altogether).

[Aminatidi]

I honestly don't see how anything that's 100% equity exposure can be considered lower risk or appropriate for someone with "little" appetite for risk.

My mum has little appetite for risk and there is no way in a million years I would consider LifeStrategy 100 or any 100% equity fund appropriate for her.

[Dod101]

How do you balance "Move it all into a low cost wrapper that reflects her risk appetite (little)" with "Vanguard Lifestrategy - and probably the 100% equity one".

Respectfully whatever the view on IFA's or SJP I doubt either would suggest someone who has "little" risk appetite put all their assets in a 100% equity fund.

Apologies if I've misunderstood but if I haven't this seems very important.

I suppose that is reflective of her current portfolio, which is predominantly in equities. It is also reflective of a relative sizeable portfolio (which in the normal course should be able to ride market bumps) and with the need to generate maximum income. I see it (perhaps wrongly) as a lower risk equity investment.

But if we go down that route it is also one for further research, discussion and consideration - on reflection, it could easily be one of the others (or a different pre-made cheap fund altogether).

rollo has touched on something that tends to be forgotten in discussions about the make up of portfolios; what is the purpose of the portfolio? In this case we are now told that 'maximising income' is the apparently overriding need. So we could be needing to look at a HYP like portfolio but all portfolios are a balance between safety or security and the investment outcome, whether that be growth or income or a balance between the two.

For a largely equity portfolio, a HYP is probably relatively low risk (and of course low growth) but if maximising the income is what is needed it may not be a bad way to proceed.

Dod

[kempiejon]

Whilst talking about the Vanguard Lifestyle method, regardless of it's final equity/bonds balance. I'm sure I'd read around here that it has a home bias and hence the associated risks or not of excluding industries and territories so I checked the weightings per country.
a table I pulled from Hargreaves Lansdown

United States	         31.45%
United Kingdom	         20.27%
Ireland	                 16.80%
Japan	                  4.93%
Non-Classified	          3.92%
Switzerland	          2.14%
France	                  2.06%
Germany	                  1.80%
China	                  1.69%
Australia	          1.39%

The global stock market is weighted more than 50% US.
How does the existing portfolio stack up under a similar measure?

[scrumpyjack]

Whilst talking about the Vanguard Lifestyle method, regardless of it's final equity/bonds balance. I'm sure I'd read around here that it has a home bias and hence the associated risks or not of excluding industries and territories so I checked the weightings per country.
a table I pulled from Hargreaves Lansdown

United States	         31.45%
United Kingdom	         20.27%
Ireland	                 16.80%
Japan	                  4.93%
Non-Classified	          3.92%
Switzerland	          2.14%
France	                  2.06%
Germany	                  1.80%
China	                  1.69%
Australia	          1.39%

The global stock market is weighted more than 50% US.
How does the existing portfolio stack up under a similar measure?

A major problem with these sort of statistics is that often they are of very dubious accuracy. Hargreaves Lansdowne purports to analyse my portfolio geographically but, as far as I can see, simply bases the result on the country of incorporation. So a UK investment trust whose investments are 100% overseas will come up as being 100% UK! Utter rubbish if we are trying to get some sense of geographical spread.

[hiriskpaul]

I look after investments for a couple of relatives. Being cognisant of the risk of underperforming the market from choosing actively managed funds and investments I might otherwise pick for myself, I invest in cheap trackers. Global developed/Global emerging in the ratio 9:1. That way I cannot be accused of picking poor investments. I also endeavour to keep investment costs as low as possible and keep track of where they hold their cash deposits, to advise when they should switch.

In your situation I would definitely switch away from SJP as soon as possible, but taking care to avoid CGT.

Given the age and circumstances of your relative it seems likely that she will need to spend increasing amounts on care, so a large proportion of equities is highly inappropriate. I would suggest 60% at most. LifeStrategy funds are not a bad option. I don't like the overweighting of UK equities and DIY equivalents can be run more cheaply, but those are minor niggles. LS funds would be far more suitable than anything SJP have to offer.

Later on you might want to consider things like immediate needs annuities and you should definitely seek advice on this. These types of products are difficult to acquire without advice anyway.

[NotSure]

A Vanguard alternative to LS is their 'Target Retirement' funds. Basically a pretty classical global stock/bond split - just choose your preferred ratio and find the 'target date' that best matches it.

I don't have figures, but while they do overweight UK, I don't think is anything like as dramatic as the LS figures listed above.

Less well known, but Vanguard also run a few 'cheap' active funds (<0.5% OCF). Used to be called 'global balanced' but recently renamed 'Sustainable Life'. The (roughly) 70/30 has been running for a while and 60/40 plus an 80/20 version have recently been added. These have far fewer holdings than LS or TR, but the equity portion is a mixture of value and growth (Well, the 70/30 is. I'm less familiar with the new ones).

[DrFfybes]

How do you balance "Move it all into a low cost wrapper that reflects her risk appetite (little)" with "Vanguard Lifestrategy - and probably the 100% equity one".

Respectfully whatever the view on IFA's or SJP I doubt either would suggest someone who has "little" risk appetite put all their assets in a 100% equity fund.

Apologies if I've misunderstood but if I haven't this seems very important.

I suppose that is reflective of her current portfolio, which is predominantly in equities. It is also reflective of a relative sizeable portfolio (which in the normal course should be able to ride market bumps) and with the need to generate maximum income. I see it (perhaps wrongly) as a lower risk equity investment.

But if we go down that route it is also one for further research, discussion and consideration - on reflection, it could easily be one of the others (or a different pre-made cheap fund altogether).

And there's the rub. Almost everyone has their own opinions and selects evidence to support it. One person's low risk is another's high, one person's Balanced is another's conservsative.

One thing an (I)FA is required to do is assess the client's attitude to risk, and recommend products that reflect that risk. I was very surprised that when we did the review we were suggested 30% bonds, yet I much prefer the "100% equities with 2-3 years' cash buffer" approach (note that cash buffer is 'spend above guaranteed pension income') which for us is a 123 account and premium bonds. It really is a minefield which is why professionals charge so much, ie so they can afford the best Compliance experts and lawyers You have to be mindful not to regard it as though it is your own money (although presumably eventually a proportion of it will be).

Paul

[ursaminortaur]

Thanks again - really good points. I hadn't yet thought about tax or exit fees, but they are potentially other wrinkles to consider.

It's a big responsibility managing someone else's money. Even though you may be very comfortable making your own investing decisions you have to err on the side of caution if doing so for someone else. That said, almost any sensible strategy will surely be better than going with SJP.

What are her income expectations, and does she expect to preserve any capital for estate planning, or is she happy running it down to (near) zero?

If it were me I suggest something splitting between a few simple strategy like:

1/3 into a vanilla 60/30/10 global stocks/bonds/gold portfolio
1/3 into a widows & orphans trust - either CGT and/or PNL
1/3 towards an annuity - she is at the age now where the benefits of an annuity are considerable given the increasing uncertainty over her remaining years

It's really difficult to predict. At the moment, with her dementia, she can live at home with some 'electronic' support, but there will come a time when she will have to move into supported living accommodation. Her income expectations/requirements are relatively modest now, but who knows what they might be in six, twelve or eighteen months' time. She's in Wales, so the cap on social care is unlikely to apply unless the WG come up with its own version. I don't doubt that the costs of a care home would erode that capital pretty quickly, so trying to maintain it as long as possible will be the key. She does have her house too, which is likely to be needed down the line. She's early/mid seventies so potentially 20+ years to consider.

Since she has dementia once she moves into a care home it would be likely that she would need to stay in care for the rest of her life. Thus once she reaches that point you or whoever has Power of Attorney at that point might want to look at funding it via the purchase of an immediate needs annuity

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/family-and-care/long-term-care/immediate-needs-annuity

[Dod101]

I look after investments for a couple of relatives. Being cognisant of the risk of underperforming the market from choosing actively managed funds and investments I might otherwise pick for myself, I invest in cheap trackers. Global developed/Global emerging in the ratio 9:1. That way I cannot be accused of picking poor investments. I also endeavour to keep investment costs as low as possible and keep track of where they hold their cash deposits, to advise when they should switch.

In your situation I would definitely switch away from SJP as soon as possible, but taking care to avoid CGT.

Given the age and circumstances of your relative it seems likely that she will need to spend increasing amounts on care, so a large proportion of equities is highly inappropriate. I would suggest 60% at most. LifeStrategy funds are not a bad option. I don't like the overweighting of UK equities and DIY equivalents can be run more cheaply, but those are minor niggles. LS funds would be far more suitable than anything SJP have to offer.

Later on you might want to consider things like immediate needs annuities and you should definitely seek advice on this. These types of products are difficult to acquire without advice anyway.

And how are the cheap trackers results doing in relation to your presumably more risky investments over say the last five years?

Dod

[vand]

Thanks again - really good points. I hadn't yet thought about tax or exit fees, but they are potentially other wrinkles to consider.

It's a big responsibility managing someone else's money. Even though you may be very comfortable making your own investing decisions you have to err on the side of caution if doing so for someone else. That said, almost any sensible strategy will surely be better than going with SJP.

What are her income expectations, and does she expect to preserve any capital for estate planning, or is she happy running it down to (near) zero?

If it were me I suggest something splitting between a few simple strategy like:

1/3 into a vanilla 60/30/10 global stocks/bonds/gold portfolio
1/3 into a widows & orphans trust - either CGT and/or PNL
1/3 towards an annuity - she is at the age now where the benefits of an annuity are considerable given the increasing uncertainty over her remaining years

It's really difficult to predict. At the moment, with her dementia, she can live at home with some 'electronic' support, but there will come a time when she will have to move into supported living accommodation. Her income expectations/requirements are relatively modest now, but who knows what they might be in six, twelve or eighteen months' time. She's in Wales, so the cap on social care is unlikely to apply unless the WG come up with its own version. I don't doubt that the costs of a care home would erode that capital pretty quickly, so trying to maintain it as long as possible will be the key. She does have her house too, which is likely to be needed down the line. She's early/mid seventies so potentially 20+ years to consider.

I'm interested to know why you've suggested the strategy that you have. I guess I had in my mind that it would simply just be a Vanguard Lifestrategy - and probably the 100% equity one given the potential length of time that it will be invested for. My investing has mainly been in individual shares along the HYP principles and is relatively modest in value. Whilst I'm comfortable with that strategy for me, I certainly wouldn't be investing on that basis for her - so looking for safer, better diversified ITs instead. I was thinking Vanguard simply because of the low fees. I couldn't reliably pick which IT is going to outperform, and wouldn't really know where to start - so low fees with a globally renowned company seems the best option. An annuity seems like it would be a disaster - I don't know what £170k or so would buy a 7X year old woman, but I bet it's not much. I think flexibility to meet unpredictable care home fees - at least for the first few years would be far better than a modest annuity that wouldn't get close to what she needs when she does go into a care home.

But writing that has just given me another wobble. I'm struck that I'm proposing to advise someone else to move their entire life savings that they are going to need to fund their healthcare, yet I "wouldn't really know where to start" where to look for a fund.

Yet to do nothing would mean that SJP would continue to take the p*ss. The annual statement is worse than useless in explaining how the fees work - from what I can see, I think annual fee for existing investments is 2.23% - but this may exclude another 0.5% annual "maintenance charge". She's going to need all the money she has and it boils my blood that SJP would continue to exploit elderly, vulnerable people in that way.

That probably takes me back to finding a good whole of market IFA who can give some proper advice at a reasonable cost. Or is "good" and "IFA" a contradiction in terms? But even then - I can't believe that the initial fee will be less than 1% - that would be £5k to do little more than say, why don't you consider these ITs that may do better or worse than some others?

Is it possible to find out what she already holds with SJP and find similar funds with largely the same or similar holdings elsewhere that have lower charges? That way you'd not be increasing her risk just saving on fees. It might take a bit if work but I presume the SJP funds must produce annual reports with a fuĺl list of holdings, sectors and countires as other funds do.

You mention the ongoing charges are opaque but don't SJP have to produce an annual breakdown of the charges levied?

.

Yes, I've got the list and I guess I could try and find similar funds, but the descriptions are pretty vague "UK Equity", "Global High Yield Bond" etc etc (and there are a load of them). I also don't think that SJP has the "right" answer necessarily, so if I was to recommend, I would want to simplify it to something both understandable for me and my mother-in-law/wife/wife's brother.

Plenty to ponder - thanks again all.

I suggest separating between the 3 strategies because such an approach is effectively diversifying between strategies.

From what I can gather, capital preserveration and preserving purchasing power is going to be more important to your MIL going forward than capturing further gains. She isn't likely to be able to add to the portfolio with her deteriorating condition so isn't well placed to take advantage of a strategy that had larger drawdowns.

But you still haven't made clear what her requirements are for the portfolio, what her income expectation is, how much flexibility she has around the budgeting, etc. Without these well defined you are kinda steering the ship without a compass.

[monabri]

Just had a look at one of their global funds ( SJP Global Equity)

https://digital.feprecisionplus.com/fac ... iCode=09QZ



Woeful underperformance against a simple Benchmark which could have been significantly outperformed by investing in a cheap tracker.




I've got no idea of their charges because the pages are blank. The website was so slow I gave up for now.

[scrumpyjack]

Looks like, for SJP Wealth Managers, the priority is managing their own wealth rather than the client's?

[monabri]

I suggested earlier that the investments are listed (%) as a portfolio review. Then we can debate alternatives and justification.

[seekingbalance]

I have looked into this sort of thing for a couple of sets of friends, and have taken the approach suggested by many on this thread:

- as a base case simply look at the current advisor's recommendations and current fund set up then either transfer these to a different wrapper or sell and buy back something close to it. This provides you the "cover" of making decisions about product mixes you may later regret and puts the onus on the friend/relative to make the call about whether to seek better alternatives but at the same time drastically reduces costs. In my example this was a literal one for one switch and a 2.3% pa drop in fees
- always focus on low cost - but be careful about sell/buy fees and also CGT (in both the cases I looked at CGT was not an issue, but with a long held £500k portfolio I assume it must be in this case and probably considerable (and if it's not then that another black mark against the investment advice received so far). CGT on a recently successful £500k pot could be a huge amount and if the SJP setup necessitates having to pay this it may obviate any savings you might make by switching.
- consider "safer" worldwide funds with a cheap provider like Vanguard or iShares and separate out a cash fund equivalent to two or three years of expected generation from that fund. In the example I recently looked at this was £15k out of a £110k pot. This helps avoid the worry of getting it exactly right, of a flash crash and of reliance on bonds as a cash substitute (check out how bond funds have fared in the last 6 months - NOT a pretty sight). Having "too big" a cash buffer has always enabled me to be more aggressive with fund and share selection than being 100% invested, even though it has more likely left me considerable less wealthy than if I had gone 100%. Knowing you don't have to sell shares or funds at exactly the wrong time is very useful for peace of mind.

One final point, not covered by any other commenters and quite uncomfortable - do seek some medical advice on Vascular Dementia. I see you mention "perhaps 20 years" several times here, but I can tell you from personal experience that if your MIL has Vascular Dementia she does not have 20 years. More like 5-7. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/vascular-dementia-your-questions-answered

Good luck,

SB

[rollo19]

Thanks again for all the comments - I'm finding it an extremely helpful discussion.

But you still haven't made clear what her requirements are for the portfolio, what her income expectation is, how much flexibility she has around the budgeting, etc. Without these well defined you are kinda steering the ship without a compass.

Trying to define those things is hard, not least as they are subject to (unpredictable) change. I do take and appreciate the point though - the first question whether to wrest the controls away from a pirate. And then to think about what the course looks like.

Since she has dementia once she moves into a care home it would be likely that she would need to stay in care for the rest of her life. Thus once she reaches that point you or whoever has Power of Attorney at that point might want to look at funding it via the purchase of an immediate needs annuity

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/famil ... ds-annuity

That's definitely something to look at further when that course is a little more settled in terms of timing/cost etc.

And there's the rub. Almost everyone has their own opinions and selects evidence to support it. One person's low risk is another's high, one person's Balanced is another's conservsative.

Totally agreed. In fact, taking a closer look, her portfolio is c. 60% equity, 35% bonds, 10% "alternative". Her largest fund Strategic Income is predominantly bonds, yet considered as "medium risk". https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/p/m ... ome-pn-acc

I have looked into this sort of thing for a couple of sets of friends, and have taken the approach suggested by many on this thread:

- as a base case simply look at the current advisor's recommendations and current fund set up then either transfer these to a different wrapper or sell and buy back something close to it. This provides you the "cover" of making decisions about product mixes you may later regret and puts the onus on the friend/relative to make the call about whether to seek better alternatives but at the same time drastically reduces costs. In my example this was a literal one for one switch and a 2.3% pa drop in fees
- always focus on low cost - but be careful about sell/buy fees and also CGT (in both the cases I looked at CGT was not an issue, but with a long held £500k portfolio I assume it must be in this case and probably considerable (and if it's not then that another black mark against the investment advice received so far). CGT on a recently successful £500k pot could be a huge amount and if the SJP setup necessitates having to pay this it may obviate any savings you might make by switching.
- consider "safer" worldwide funds with a cheap provider like Vanguard or iShares and separate out a cash fund equivalent to two or three years of expected generation from that fund. In the example I recently looked at this was £15k out of a £110k pot. This helps avoid the worry of getting it exactly right, of a flash crash and of reliance on bonds as a cash substitute (check out how bond funds have fared in the last 6 months - NOT a pretty sight). Having "too big" a cash buffer has always enabled me to be more aggressive with fund and share selection than being 100% invested, even though it has more likely left me considerable less wealthy than if I had gone 100%. Knowing you don't have to sell shares or funds at exactly the wrong time is very useful for peace of mind.

One final point, not covered by any other commenters and quite uncomfortable - do seek some medical advice on Vascular Dementia. I see you mention "perhaps 20 years" several times here, but I can tell you from personal experience that if your MIL has Vascular Dementia she does not have 20 years. More like 5-7. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/vascular-dementia-your-questions-answered

Good luck,

SB

Thanks and this sums up the really helpful advice.

1) I think that is a good starting point and one that I will look at in a lot more detail once I've discussed the way forward with her and my wife/her brother. Going back to setting the course - what may have been appropriate (e.g. income requirements, risk appetite) when it was all set-up may not now be appropriate. It is potentially ripe for a reset, but that takes me back to the point that vand made and attempting to clearly define what her needs/requirements look like. Number 4) below, hard as it is, is also relevant to that. Those conversations certainly have not been instigated by the SJP advisor.

2) Tax for some of it is going to be a wrinkle - about half of it is in a ISA, so no particular problem, but the CGT position as regards the rest is likely to need some unpicking over time.

3) I think that is my preferred approach for its simplicity, but based on 1), it won't be my decision. There is also a relatively sizeable cash or cash equivalent buffer - I think £100k or so.

4) Again really appreciate the comment. From what I've understood from the initial conversations with the relevant doctors, life expectancy didn't seem quite as black and white as that. But that may be wishful thinking and being properly informed about that course is pretty important, however difficult. I'm sorry to hear that you've also personal experience - I hope that things went as well as they could in the difficult circumstances.

I suggested earlier that the investments are listed (%) as a portfolio review. Then we can debate alternatives and justification.

Thanks and I will - but after the course is a little more settled. For now, it is wresting control from the pirate and working out what the objectives are.