CleverAdviser
Tops performance v cost comparisons as FUM doubles in last six months
- 105 IFA firms using Clever solutions, 48 using CleverMPS
- CleverMPS assets have doubled over last six months
- 1,800 investor accounts using CleverMPS (including joint accounts)
- £1.7 billion FUM across all Clever solutions, £406.7 million in CleverMPS
We recently released peer group analysis of model portfolio services which reveals how the performance of MPS products compare against costs.
We discovered that four out of five CleverMPS products, are number one in the comparisons – CleverMPS 3, CleverMPS 4, CleverMPS 5 and CleverMPS 6. CleverMPS 7 is at position two.
Dynamic Planner Profile 5: 3-year Performance[1]
[1] The full Performance v Cost Peer Group Report accompanies this news release
Consistency of performance is also important to IFAs. The CleverMPS fund picks also provide considerable value over and above their sector average counterparts, outperforming 11 of the 14 IA sectors held within the range (for three years to 31 October 2020) – a success rate of 79%.
Over the last three years, an average of 10.2% performance has been added by the fund picks over and above the corresponding IA sector average. Notable outperformance can be seen in the following sectors (of the sectors held in portfolios for three years to 31 October 2020):
| Sector | CleverMPS 3-year outperformance |
| Europe ex UK | +39.11% |
| UK All Companies | +34.32% |
| Japan | +21.52% |
| Emerging Markets | +20.86% |
| Asia Pacific ex Japan | +12.00% |
| North America | +11.69% |
Colum Wilde, our Founder and CEO, says:
“At the request of our IFA clients, we track the main MPS providers quarterly but we’re still surprised to see so many consistent poor performers. I started Clever 10 years ago because I couldn’t find any technology to help drive the evidence-based investment process I wanted for my clients. Whilst our MPS models enjoy top positions in their peer groups, which I firmly believe is to down our fund screening technology, there are other providers out there who adopt much more traditional approaches and are performing poorly in comparison, yet charge much higher fees.
“Our process is clear – we strip out the market noise and opinions, crunch the numbers, and find the funds which are most likely to provide consistent growth.”
