Child Trust Funds...

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

matt

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
2
Location
Miles away - totally impractical...
I'm just looking in to investing the £250 voucher from the Govt, looking at a sea of Child Trust Fund providers, and wondering which one to go with.

I know to check the annual charges but, other than that... Anyone any clue what else to look for? Most of the companies I've never even heard of!

How do you spot a good one from average from absolute duffer?!
 
I would check on Motley Fool and Moneysupermarket and see what they say. I think Motley Fool have a good comparison chart which we started off with, then picked a couple to compare and came up with the one we eventually went with which had the best market rate at the time (along with sensible relevant policies).

Out of date now but this was one of the articles I looked at when making our decision. I have both the Halifax trust fund then at the end of each year the money is swept into the Save4It account and you start again with the trust fund. The Save4It account had by far the best rate at the time, 5.5%, and I think that still stands.
 
Cash rates are easy, but share funds (given it is a long term investment, we went for shares) are much more difficult especially because of the lack of any substantial track record. We went with Childrens Mutual, but it was a bit of a stab in the dark tbh.
 
I recently set one up. I think it was with the Childrens Mutual through Coop financial. It's an ethical stakeholder. I read lots of info and got rather confused but in the end decided it was quite easy.

All the sites seem to give the same information which is about the major types.
Cash - safe but not expected to have a high yield. No fee.
Stakeholder - usually market tracker. Expected better return than cash over 18 years. Max 1.5% fees.
Shares - Best return expected. Higher risk. No max fees.

Beyond that, the information I wanted to make a proper informed decision seemed to be a little thin on the ground.

- Cash has done better than Stakeholder over the last few years and there are comparisons of the best rates at various sites.
- There are no real comparisons of the stakeholder schemes because the economy has been variable and the fees are the same.
- Shares are across a variety of managed schemes and really you need to know about things like commodities movements and various arcane ratios for business sectors.

My final logic went like this :- Shares schemes are too complicated for me, certainly to manage on a regular basis. Cash schemes are better now but probably won't provide the best return in the long run. So only stakeholder are left. There's no decent comparisons available so my only choice was ethical or normal. Choosing ethical limited me to a couple of options. I can't remember what the final arbiter was, something like free gift or colour or something of that nature. Assuming the rates are roughly the same the important thing was to get the money in the account as soon as possible. If I don't like the options I can transfer it for free at a later date.

Then my son will spend it all in 18 years on wine, women and song. I don't mind the wine and the women so much, as long as he isn't using it to vote on the 2027 X-factor winner.
 
TobyT":13unx0gp said:
Assuming the rates are roughly the same the important thing was to get the money in the account as soon as possible. If I don't like the options I can transfer it for free at a later date.
That was ultimately what drove it for us. Like you I don't have the time or skills (or time to learn the skills) to manage a share based scheme, and getting it in somewhere earning some interest ASAP was the most important thing. It might not make her a millionnaire but she will certainly be much better off than if we did nothing, and much better off than I was at her age, so that was my thinking.

TobyT":13unx0gp said:
Then my son will spend it all in 18 years on wine, women and song. I don't mind the wine and the women so much, as long as he isn't using it to vote on the 2027 X-factor winner.
I guess so long as he takes you along to the dancing bar every now and then that will help too ;)
 
Thanks for all the feedback. It's reassuring to know I'm not alone! We're not planning to add to the £250 (much prefer to put money elsewhere for their future than a CTF) so it's not major decision.

I knocked together a spreadsheet to calculate compound interest over the years, using the year-on-year perecentage increase in the value to predict the final value after 18 years. My daughter's five year old stakeholder account varies wildy. It looked impressive up until year 3 when things have fallen dramtically.

I think I'll choose a different provider for my son and see what happens by comparison to my daughters.

Thanks again.
 
matt":2gf0c93s said:
My daughter's five year old stakeholder account varies wildy. It looked impressive up until year 3 when things have fallen dramtically.

Not at all surprising given the stock market crash and will be true for any shares account held over that period, even for the most astute managers who upped their cash%. It's a long term investment, shares go down as well as up, etc.
 
We put ours in Coop as they are (slightly more) ethical than others.

Have had it for a year or two and it's worth less than the £250 we started with!

Frankly the whole thing is a waste of everyone's money and certainly I think you'd be mad to contribute additional funds to it - an ISA (or some new tools?!?) is a better investment.
 
softtop":2mx6rgf4 said:
Frankly the whole thing is a waste of everyone's money and certainly I think you'd be mad to contribute additional funds to it
Very helpful advice there! Not.

To balance this, the one for my daughter has had the intial £250 + £100 per month added and is worth (according to the recent statement) around £80 more than the £700 I have put into it...

softtop":2mx6rgf4 said:
an ISA (or some new tools?!?) is a better investment.
Possibly. Probably. But it certainly isn't a 'waste of everyone's money', and it is certainly better than nothing.
 
Huh?
I don't get the negativity about the CTFs.
It encourages us to save for our son, it's a better rate than a normal child savings account and the money can't be touched by us or him until he's 18.
The govt give him the cash for free and why not top it up?
It's grown in value every year as we chose the savings version rather than the stock version.
It's simple and easy and we like it.
 
cambournepete":3c0vpam1 said:
Huh?
I don't get the negativity about the CTFs.
It encourages us to save for our son, it's a better rate than a normal child savings account and the money can't be touched by us or him until he's 18.
The govt give him the cash for free and why not top it up?
It's grown in value every year as we chose the savings version rather than the stock version.
It's simple and easy and we like it.
=D>
 
cambournepete":1ykpd3j0 said:
Huh?
I don't get the negativity about the CTFs.
It encourages us to save for our son, it's a better rate than a normal child savings account and the money can't be touched by us or him until he's 18.
The govt give him the cash for free and why not top it up?
It's grown in value every year as we chose the savings version rather than the stock version.
It's simple and easy and we like it.

My problem with it is tax payers cash is going to people who could afford to save for their children anyway.

To an extent I see the point of giving it to poor families to encourage them to add a tenner here an there as they can afford it , but it ought to be means tested
 
Sorry perhaps I didn't qualify my response enough.

I'm sure the idea is good in principle but the people who were going to save money for their kids would have done so anyway (and without incurring a load of fees for management consultants and beaurocrats) and those who don't have children are having to pay for this too, which isn't entirely fair. Also the rates on offer at the various institutions are not that appealing.

Fianlly, given this government has saddled our children (and their children!) with the most enormous debt it's a bit rich to say they are teaching people to save!

Ho hum...
 
By the time you've added a raft of bureaucracy to process the means-testing, on £250 it probably isn't cost-effective.
 
Child 'Trust' Funds?

Its easy enough to Trust a child but which financial organisation can you 'Trust' to look after the money and give you a fair return?

Which ones will still be around in eighteen years without having done a bunk with the money?

After putting £10 per month (£1200 total) for our grandaughter into a 10 year baby bond with The Childrens Mutual (Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society) it paid out in April 2008 £1215.16!!!!!

Richard
 
Jake":3ggfdfwb said:
By the time you've added a raft of bureaucracy to process the means-testing, on £250 it probably isn't cost-effective.

possibly so but how much bureacracy does it really take to check the parents income - especially as the revenue already have the relevant information
 
This is another 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', isn't it?
If you means test it some people complain about the unfairness. If you don't, then some people complain about the unfairness.

It's a little bit of a starter, and was aimed mostly at people who don't save much or invest. Personally I think it is a good idea, and don't mind if it comes out of my taxes.
 
The government is currently spending more than it is collecting from taxpayers. Therefore the money being handed out for CTFs is effectively being borrowed from the IMF. The country is paying the IMF a far higher intertest rate than any of the financial institutions is offering on CTFs or any other investments.

What sense is there in that?

Richard
 
Back
Top