BBC - Child Trust Funds lose 29%

BBC NEWS Child Trust Funds lose millions

A third of a billion pounds has been wiped off the value of Child Trust Funds in the past year, figures obtained by the BBC show.

Since 2002 the government has given every newborn £250, which parents can invest for their child's future.

Three out of four put the money into accounts which were invested in shares.

But figures show their value has fallen by an average of 29% over the past year. The government said historically shares earned more than cash savings.

A Treasury spokesman said: "The Child Trust Fund is a long-term investment over an 18-year period and the first Child Trust Fund accounts will not reach maturity until 2020.

"Although shares can go down as well as up in value, particularly in the short-term, the historical evidence is that they provide a better return than cash savings for long-term investments."

'Middle road'

Emma Clark followed the government's advice for her child and said as a result, her fund had lost in the region of £200.

She told the BBC: "We chose a stakeholder account on the basis of government literature.

"It was the middle road of three routes and we liked it because it was fixed management charges of 1.5%, and it also allowed investment in shares.

"And the government had said in their literature that over the last 40 years every 18-year cycle of shares investment had done better than savings, ordinary savings accounts.

"Well, over the past year in total we've paid £825 into the account. And I rang up for a valuation and we were given a figure of £613."

Roddy Kohn, from investment advisers Kohn Cougar, said investing in shares carried a large amount of risk and that people should not invest on the stock market if they were not prepared for that risk.

He told the BBC: "Basically, consumers have been taken to the cleaners by the investment community.

"The biggest problem with Child Trust Funds now is that it's quite evident that many people have invested their money in the stock market without understanding risk.

"Consequently when they're seeing these losses they're upset by it.

"The truth of the matter is if you haven't got the stomach for risk, if you don't understand what risk is, then don't invest this money in a stock market-invested Child Trust Fund."

'Not sensible'

Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, said as a result of the BBC-obtained figures, people would be put off saving for their children - exactly the opposite objective hoped for by the government.

He told the BBC: "The irony of this whole exercise is that a scheme that was primarily designed to encourage people to think about long- term savings, may have exactly the opposite effect.

"Because if - for the first time in their lives - people have actually saved money and they've saved it through this scheme and they've lost a lot, the lesson they're going to learn is this is not a very sensible thing to do."

But Miles Bingham from Family Investments - which looks after more than 500,000 Child Trust Funds - said parents should not worry.

He told the BBC: "History always shows that the stock market returns better than cash accounts in the long term. And parents need to remember that these accounts are going to last for 18 years.

"In fact the first one won't even mature until 2020. So it's a long time to go between now and then."

Story from BBC NEWS:

formatting link

Reply to
Daytona
Loading thread data ...

That's what they all say.

Mr Geldard, you say your your pension fund is down `65%. Well to preserve your pension you obviously need to *Put more money in* !

Not over the last 10 years.

You can bet your sweet life they continued to take their charges as the fund went down the gurgler.

Yeah, right. The kids should sue their parents for taking such an inappropriate risk on their behalf.

My pension fund has gone monotone downwards for 10+ that's a fair old proprtion of the 18.

Let him underwrite any losses then. Shirley it won't be a problem.

Derek

Reply to
Derek Geldard

One lump-sum pension investment I made 10 years ago promised untold riches, according to the salesman's 6%, 9% and 12% growth charts.

Last time I checked it was 5% up -- after 10 years. And that was in September. I haven't bothered to check it since.

I think most would consider 10 years moderately long-time. Much longer and I might be dead.

Another endowment scheme I had to take out in 1989, designed to pay off £45K mortgage over 25 years.

After 8 years, I'd paid in roughly £5000, and the the value was ... £5000.

0% growth over 8 years, a third of the term.

The child fund may have gone down 29%. The trouble is, the next 40% of growth will be wasted just to get back to the start point.

Reply to
Bartc

In message , Bartc wrote

I bet however that the same company is sending out glossy advertising showing past performance with a much better return. They will fail to mention the commissions, fees or management costs. If there was a downturn in the market 9 years ago they will only show results for the previous 8 years and not 10 years etc.

Has anyone noticed the cost of sending out half yearly statements is inversely proportional to the performance of the fund? I received a pension statement this week in a thick full colour cardboard folder. The statement itself was on a full colour sheet of A3. The actual important, and necessary, information could have been printed on a single side of A4 in black ink. My ISA statement turns up in a 10 page booklet where all of the relevant information is on a single tear out page.

Reply to
Alan

Reply to
mick

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.