Equities 

Product review: Tam Asset Management ethical portfolios

Discretionary manager Tam Asset Management has launched a new thread to ethical investment with its ‘you give, we give’ scheme.

The venture allows investors to donate a part of their returns to a charity of their choice. Investors can select from five new risk-profiled portfolios, ranging from defensive to adventurous, based on socially responsible investments. They can then divert a percentage of their profits to their chosen charity.

In what Tam calls an “innovative move”, it will match the percentage given with the same percentage from its management fee. In years where there is no growth or negative performance on the fund, the firm will look on a case-by-case basis whether to donate part of the management fee. Where appropriate, the charity selected may also benefit from the HMRC Gift Aid scheme, which increases charitable donations by UK taxpayers.

Investors can change their chosen charity at any time, alter the percentage donation or choose to halt donations if they need to.

An annual management fee of 0.4 per cent applies to the portfolios, which can be held within a number of wrappers including an Isa, Sipp, workplace pension, trust or life assurance-wrapped product. There is no set minimum but investments exceeding £10,000 are typical.

www.tamassetmanagement.com

Comment

Theoretically, any investor may want to donate to charity; surely it is not only ‘ethical’ investors who wish to give.

That said, a link between socially responsible investing and charitable giving seems natural, given the propensity to think about the wider picture rather than focusing solely on profits.

The question is whether this is the best way to do it. There are many ways of donating to charity, including give as you earn schemes, so this might not be appropriate for all donators.

Where this fits most neatly is for ‘active casual’ givers: those who know they want to give to charity as part of their overall ethical outlook – and have made a conscious decision to do so – but would like someone else to take care of it.

The promise from Tam to match donations is commendable; no manager is obliged to make such an offer. It is in percentage terms, however, rather than matching pound for pound, which will equate to quite small amounts in some circumstances.

And the donation is inextricably linked with whether or not the portfolio is successful, so none would be made if performance were poor.

But the level of donations is markedly better than nothing.

Comments