What we're going to do today is we're going talk a little bit about multi asset funds, MPS. I've actually had the Advisers three point zero. We had a there was a client that came up to me and say, when do I use multi asset fund and when do I use NPS? And there's obvious ones, CGT, spoiler alert, but they're also from and and it's there's what I'm gonna share today is not advice from an adviser's point of view. It is definitely feedback that we've had from other advisers where they see a use case for multi asset funds. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna share my screen now and just run you quickly through the agenda of what we're gonna do or what what we will be discussing today. There we go. So I'm gonna start off by looking at the choice. What's the difference between a multi asset fund and an MPS? Very generalistic, not timeline MPS and timeline multi asset fund. We'll then talk a little bit more about inside our multi asset fund, the TM timeline multi asset funds. Those that are familiar with the multi asset fund would have seen some of this information in the past as well, but I do think it's quite important for advisers and investors to understand all the moving parts within a multi asset fund, because a multi asset fund is a little bit more complicated than just a model portfolio service. At that point, I'll jump into our control center, show you and our control center is our internal word for just the the timeline investment portal into analytics. I'll show you how the portfolios or the multi asset fund reflects on our on our investment portal. I'll show you some of the differences between Tracker and our multi asset fund well, differences. I'll show you that there aren't really any differences between the two. And just a caveat there, I will not be showing any performance. There's a reason for that, and that reason is a three letter word, FCA. So the FCA doesn't allow us to show performance of less than twelve months. It has to be a full twelve month period, hence why you would also have noticed on our fund fact sheets, performance is visible. So on any promotional material, you won't see performance for the next two months, but we are nearing a one year period, so I will show you actually how the fund done over the last twelve months and that it has done or has reacted as expected. Then the final part of this webinar, we're going to look into five main reasons why investors or advisors are recommending a multi asset fund over and not an NPS, but there's still a use case for an NPS. Majority of our assets is within an NPS. We expect it to stay that way. And from Timeline's point of view, there really isn't any commercial incentive for us whether you use multi asset fund or NPS. So for us, it's literally just to make sure that we give advisers all the tools that they do need to be the most efficient in their advice process. Right, so let's jump straight into the differences between multi asset fund and model portfolio services. And as I've said, this is very generic. It's not timeline specific. It's just a multi asset fund and a MPA service, a portfolio service. So first of all, the question is what does the client actually own? Well, we would say you own the same thing, but on paper, you don't. Within a multi asset fund, the client owns one fund, so a single line item on the platform, and usually the platform will only report that single line item. But if you go into a analytics tool, you would probably be able to see some of the underlying holdings as well. An MPS or a model portfolio service, the client holds each individual fund directly, so not the portfolio, but the fund. The rebalancing, well, both is being done in our case, whether it's timeline multi asset fund or the MPS, both are being done by TimeLine. But in reality, within a Multi Asset Fund, the fund manager is responsible for the rebalancing within an MPS, the TFM is doing the rebalancing. If it's an advisory portfolio, the adviser will have to do the rebalancing on platforms, and it's being done across all client accounts. Where possible, we do our rebalancing not just on a model level or on a portfolio level, but we do it for every individual client's underlying accounts, so to make sure that we get the bay best benefit of a ten percent drifted approach. And, we've got that visibility then to see whether there are any assets in the client's account that should probably be flagged, whether it's cash or an ex old or an old holding that an adviser has not been aware of. So there are a bit more work going on from an implementation side within the MPS. In the fund, it's as easy as clicking a button on the Aladdin system, which we asked Northern Trust to do. So it is really straightforward within a fund. The rebalancing event, we'll talk about this in more detail, but in a multi asset fund, it's not seen as a disposal for the client. If you if you make any changes, it's an internal event, so the clients are not being triggered by any tax bills. On a model portfolio service, if you do rebalancing, if you switch any of the underlying funds, yes, it is unfortunately one of those tax or unfortunate events where there could be a tax consequence for the underlying investor. And then also, the reality is a timeline we do try, and we'll talk about it a little bit later on as well we do try to rebalance as infrequently as possible to give the client the best possible outcome, but still within an NPS rebalances are going to take place. Most NPS providers will rebalance quarterly or annually. We do it within a drifted approach, which reduces the frequency, but it is inevitable that there will be rebalances in an NPS. And then probably the most or biggest downside of a fund, you don't have a significant look through. It is yes, you can see some underlying holdings. And if you do what we've done in our analytics section, we've done a look through, overlook through to show you the underlying individual companies. But ultimately, on platform, you're going to see one line item. When a model portfolio service, you get a look through of all the underlying funds, and then you can go into those underlying funds and get an aggregated look through of the underlying assets within those funds. And then finally, customization. A multi asset fund, you invest in the fund. There's no option to customize for individual investors within a fund. On a model portfolio service, well, this is now technically where it becomes or it becomes a bit more technical. For a model portfolio service, those models are fixed, you have to invest in those models. But because barriers of entry are much lower, there are opportunities to create a bespoke portfolio for a, let's say, a specific adviser network or your traditional DFMs will do bespoke portfolios for individual clients as well, so it is easier to create portfolios as a discretionary manager, hence why you've got a bit more flexibility on that side as well. Now going into the timeline multi asset funds, I've shared this feedback when we've launched the fund well, wasn't feedback, there's a bit of information when we launched the funds around the naming convention. The TM timeline funds, I do have to admit, the name does grow on you. But initially, when we were told that we have to name the funds TM Timeline and then fifty percent to seventy percent equity, there was a bit of a bad taste going around, not externally, but definitely internally, because we wanted to call our multi asset funds the Timeline Tracker Fund. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to. The argument was that the word tracker could be misleading because it's not tracking a underlying index, it's tracking several underlying index funds. So we were advised to not use the word tracker. We also were not happy to use the word passive because most passive funds in the market use passive underlying vehicles, but they are quite tactical in their allocation, so and at timeline, we are a passive manager, but passive also very often refers to agnostic, and we do not see ourselves as an agnostic manager. We wanna know what's driving our portfolios, what are the risks that that we are exposed to in our portfolio. So we ended up just naming the portfolios the timeline funds. We were also not allowed to use forty percent, sixty percent, eighty percent or one hundred percent, even if you say percent equity, because of our drafted approach where assets can, in theory, or will move between a ten percent up and a ten percent down boundary. The FCA felt that just saying sixty percent or eighty percent can also be misleading. We had to name the full range. And that's how we ended up with the names. But we'll share the slides afterwards as well, but just to show you how these funds are matched up against our tracker, thirty percent to fifty percent equity is our tracker, forty percent from a strategic asset allocation point of view, fifty percent to seventy percent is tracker sixty percent, seventy percent to ninety percent, that's our tracker eighty percent, and then the one hundred percent equity is our tracker one hundred Being run-in exactly the same way when it comes to drift, we are not taking any tactical positions with those with the flexibility in the equity holdings. It's purely just because of the underlying drift that can play out naturally within the funds. And then the structure of a multi asset fund and, more specifically, our multi asset fund. So our multi asset fund has been launched as a nurse vehicle, also, well, just an abbreviation for a non USET retail scheme. And essentially, what it means is a UK domiciled fund. And the way a nurse fund is structured is a little bit complicated at first sight, but it's actually not that complicated. It's quite a robust vehicle building in a lot of protections for the underlying client. So the way the structure of a multi asset fund works is very much like you see on the screen. It starts on top with an ACD, an authorized corporate director. Technically, this is the owner of the fund. A ACD, their sole responsibility is to act in the interest of the investor. So Tutman, they are our ACD, and they are only acting in the interest of the investor, not in the interest of timeline, not in the interest of the adviser. It's only looking at the interest of the end investor. They then actually appoints the investment manager and the sponsor, co manufacturer, distributor, essentially the company that initiated the fund, sponsored the fund, distributes the fund and manages the fund. And that's Timeline. So Timeline is still the investment manager. We do the distribution, and we've also sponsored fund. We have appointed Northern Trust as sub investment manager for a very simple reason. Northern Trust is an institutional fund manager with significant investment management capabilities. For them to manage a fund, they're already set up for it. So we've made that agreement with them where they would do the management of the fund. We are still responsible for asset allocation, but they would monitor the drift, they would do the rebalances, and when we wanna wanna make any changes, we will reach out to them, and they'll just do it on their system. And then also, Tatman has appointed Northern Trust on the admin side, the fund administration and as the depository and the custodian. So that's a completely separate relationship. If we want to know anything about fund accounting or depository, we will have to go through Tutman. Tutman will reach out to their people. So there's a completely separate relationship with Tutman and Northern Trust on the custodian side. And then more importantly, when we designed this vehicle, it was important for us to maintain our independency, so we said we want to use independent building blocks, an unfettered vehicle that is the evidence out there is just sort of that these unfettered vehicles, they do scale better, a lot of clients see more diversification in it, although our view around manager diversification is sort of that it's more window dressing, but it certainly does help behavioral for clients knowing that there are more than just one fund manager involved. And the way we've set it up is that no single underlying fund manager are allowed to have more than fifty percent exposure to the underlying holdings. So Northern Trust, Vanguard, LGIM, iShares kept at a maximum of fifty percent, but full independency from our side, we can choose whoever we want to. And then the underlying building blocks, I will jump into our control center in a second, but as you can see, the underlying building blocks, it is the same as our tracker NPS. On the bond side, on the left hand side, we use Northern Trust, these two global bonds, so global bond and the short dated global bond, or the global bond of one to five year. And then Vanguard is giving us our UK specific exposure. On the equity side, we had to bring in three developed equity funds. This is due to nurse regulations, nurse regulations saying that you're not allowed to have more than thirty four percent exposure to an underlying holding. Now, unfortunately, a fund worth roughly two thousand underlying holdings is still being seen as a holding. So each of these funds are seen as a holding, so we had to include Legal and General, Northern Trust and Vanguard in the fund, so that gives you your developed equity exposure. Because we are now using a MSCI World Index through Northern Trust and a FTSE developed world index through Vanguard and Elgym, we had to bring in both an MSCI and a FTSE Emerging Markets Fund. So Northern Trust gives us that MSCI Emerging Markets, LNG gives us that FTSE Emerging Markets. You might ask why is that important? And historically, it really wasn't that important because emerging markets were not a massive driver of well, massive driver of returns because of the size of emerging markets. But if you just take twenty twenty five, the second largest emerging market, South Korea, has returned roughly eighty percent in local currency. I think in sterling, it was more than one hundred percent. If you were mismatched between FTSE and MSCI on developed and emerging markets, you either had a double weight to South Korea or was no exposure to South Korea. And that's why you have to be when you construct these global portfolios, you have to pay attention to the underlying indices and know how they actually evolve over time as well. And then the iShares fund, that's just to top up that UK exposure that is being left out with by the Vanguard and the Legal and General funds. So that's the makeup of the fund. I am going to jump into our control center in a second. I think it's maybe just worth touching on our rebalancing research. I don't want to go through it all. I've talked about how we do our rebalancing. But within our fund, the thirty percent to fifty percent equity, it starts at a forty percent equity. We will allow it to drift to fifty percent it breaches its risk tolerance, we're going to bring that fund back to a strategic asset allocation or at its starting point of fourteen. And the benefits behind that is it's not rocket science. It's you should expect some enhanced returns. Here, you can see how we've tested it over a thirty year rolling scenario, your fiftieth percentile, your most likely outcome. Now, hundred thousand pound portfolios portfolio well, sorry, it's actually a million pound portfolio. That was a mistake on my side It's about an additional thirty thousand pounds, so you get about a three percent additional cumulative return over that thirty year period. Sorry. Just wanna take a sip of water here. And then talking about performance in a fund, if you go into our control center and you assess the performance of our tracker portfolio relative to our multi asset fund, you might see that there are subtle differences. Those differences are mostly cosmetic. It's not real actual differences in the underlying funds. But the reasons why you would see differences is, one, on the cost side. Yes, there could be some bit of a difference. Our multi asset funds are priced at zero point two percent, twenty basis points. The NPS is priced at between six and seven basis points. If you add your nine basis points DFN charge, you get to your fifteen or sixteen or or seventeen basis points. And then data timing, so we work with underlying funds. Those funds would get updated at a certain time, then those updates have to feed through to the multi asset fund as well. So whenever you look at something like a control center, there could be a two day lag in some underlying characteristics, typically things like regional allocation or sector allocations, there could be a two day lag, so you should expect sort of a couple of basis points deviation in some of those stats. Performance, that will be updated daily. There will be an NAV price fed through daily, so performance will be very much like for like. And then your rebalancing cadence, that can cause performance as well as cost to be slightly out of sync if you compare MPS and fund, and the reason for that is the MPS was launched at a different day than the fund, so the underlying model drifts are also at different positions. And then the last one that could cause some some changes in theory is valuation timing. The funds are priced at ten thirty every morning. The underlying funds are priced at, I believe, it's between twelve and three pm. So anything that happens between those times or extreme events could actually cause a bit of a valuation gap, but that will be temporary and should converse sort of mean revert every single day. Now, I said I'm not allowed to show performance, but what I am allowed to show is just the tracking difference between our tracker and our multi asset fund to show you it is really the same thing. So we've made some changes to the underlying holdings of our timeline tracker portfolio. I believe it was on the twelfth of January. So if you go on to Control Center and you look at the performance since twelfth of January up till the most recent date, you will see that the multi asset fund and the tracker is essentially moving on the same line. And here, you can see the differences of all the funds, ten, eight, nineteen, eighteen basis points, and those are just because those differences are just because of these reasons that I've already discussed. So let me pause for a second to see if there are any questions can help Grab my mind, Richards. Absolutely. So do you have conflict of interest regarding Northern Trust being co fund manager as well as using their sub funds? Great question, Martin. And yes, that is something that we have addressed in the past as well. And the short answer is no, not really. It's something that is documented. We do have a conflict of interest policy, and we do keep that up to date. The way we've decided to partner with Nordentrust was a sort of an independent whole of market review. We went out to most underlying fund managers, had discussions with them. We were on the point we've had about two or three options on the table that were all relatively good. Northern Trust at the end, given their capabilities, given their commercial terms that we could agree with them, it made sense to give them the sub I'm role. We are paying them a nominal or a basis point fee for their sub investment management roles. But then also, we do hold their funds, and that's where the question comes in. And that is why we've specifically noted on the prospectus that we are not allowed to hold more than fifty percent to make sure that we maintain independency. So if we hold less Northern Trust funds, that's fine, just not allowed to go more than fifty percent Northern Trust. And that's to make sure that those independency from timeline is really important. And then also, the way we structured the agreement, as I've shown earlier, was also let's just go back to this slide. So Northern Trust does have a long standing relationship with Duttman. We've specifically structured it this way so that we hold the relationship with Duttman. It's not Northern Trust that holds the relationship. Again, it gives us independency. Should there be any issues with the sub investor manager, we can well, all the underlying funds, we've got free rein to do whatever we have to to to either appoint a new sub I'm or replace the underlying funds. So so, yes, I I I get where the question is coming from, but it has really been a a a fully transparent process from our side, and we've made sure to note and cover ourselves so that we can maintain our independency. Not that there aren't any other questions. Sure. There are a few in the q and a box. So do want me to read them out for you? Do you wanna have a look? I can read them. Should we read them? Please read them for me. We got a big one from Connor. Are you ready? Here we go. Go for it. So you mentioned that this is important to keep your independency. However, the Northern Trust only become part of the underlying holdings when they were appointed to run multi asset fund. It could be argued that they were brought in to be less than thirty four percent in LNG, but skeptic in me thinks the timing is a contractual obligation, not an investment decision. What confidence can you give me that I'm just being argumentative? Thank you, Conor. Conor, fair argument. Yes. So you are absolutely right. We could probably have done twenty percent Northern Trust and more Vanguard, Algium. Well, it would be more Vanguard. We couldn't do any more Algium. We were maxed out there. If you look at the so when we assess a fund, it's not just cost, but costs are a big driver of returns or lower costs are a big driver of returns and thus carry a lot of weight in our due diligence. The Northern Trust funds are by far the lowest cost. So if you take the MSCI World Fund in our MPS at six basis points. Vanguard, LGIM equivalent is eight basis points. The big difference came in on the emerging market side. Institutional priced emerging markets are seventeen basis points through both Vanguard and LGIM. Institutionally priced emerging markets for Northern Trust are eight. So that's a significant difference, hence why we've decided to max the Developed World side on the Northern Trust Fund just because it's lower two basis points, but that allows us to max the MSCI EM as well, which were eight basis points relative to seventeen basis points. So there were some method behind the madness, but yes, fully get the argument behind it. And as I've said, if we get a State Street index for five basis points tracking the MSCI, we could bring them in. There's no obligation for us to keep that Northern Trust Fund. What I would say is commercial agreements, Northern Trust will get paid as a sub investment manager irrespective of what we do within the funds as well. Great. Hope that helps. I think we'll do one more because I'm conscious of time. It's already half past. We've got a lot to get through. Okay. So we'll take this one from Benedict. Are these regulatory controls actually beginning to negatively impact performance? Good question. No. I also get where that question comes from, and yes, these regulatory controls does cost money. It is it it takes up a lot of time, a lot of resources to to make sure they're in place. It's important. I mean, we've seen what happened with well, start with eight with the Woodford scenario. Regulatory controls are important, and I do think it's important to maintain them. If you take something like the USET so in the UK, you've got FSCA protection of eighty five thousand pounds that's an additional safeguard for an investor. If you take a USET's fund, even though Ireland have their own equivalent of an FSCA protection of about twenty thousand Euro, if it's a Usits fund, you don't get any protection. The safeguards are in these regulatory structures of the underlying funds, so the assets are being ring fenced for the client at the custody level. Fund manager doesn't own the assets. There could be some basis points cash that flows through, but that's what is at risk. So really, it's a robust regulatory framework to protect the underlying investor, but it does come with its with its pains every now and then. Yeah. Actually, Let's just get these last two out the way, then we'll crack on. Okay? Do we plan to launch an ESG multi asset fund? Well, everything is demand dependent. ESG, I can say, is probably not going to be next. We've made it clear that we are looking into launching a Timeline Classic multi asset fund, but still demand dependent. We are seeing we have a very big demand pipeline for our Tracker multi asset fund, also for the Classic, is starting to build up quite a lot. But the reality of adviser businesses is that capital migrate over time as investors are seeing or as advisers are seeing investors on annual review. So we first want to make sure that this tracker multi asset fund does build up, and then we will we are starting to move into the classic version. And then once we've gone done that and there's enough demand for an ESG vehicle, we will we will go there. Incredible. Thank you, John. And then to bring it full circle, last one from Bruce. What does the TM in the fund name actually stand for? Good question. And that is a so it does not stand for timeline. It stands for the ACD. You need to denote the fund name of the ACD's name. That's a legal requirement. If you go into a lot of your other take well, who can I use as an example? Let's use TETON. TETON has a multi asset fund as well. It starts with a VT, that's Value Track, that's the ACD for the TETON fund. So it stands for TUTMAN or thesis management, but conveniently, it does actually fit in with the name timeline. Yeah. So that's that's the background behind the TM. Okay. Great. Shall we then? Should we get into the the next part? Let's get into the next part. I'm quickly gonna jump into our control center. What I'll show you is just first if we if we start towards the just hide this meeting controls. So if we start with the model section, what you'll see is our TM timeline funds. This investment portal is really built for model portfolio services, but we've adjusted it to be able to host our multi asset fund as well. So you would see the same funds as it goes from thirty to fifty all the way to one hundred. The cost, twenty basis points. The transaction fees are the same as the timeline tracker portfolio, underlying holdings or, well, a number of underlying securities, and then you will only see the four funds. You won't see each individual underlying fund. If you go to the funds section, this is now where you will see every single fund. We do have income share classes as well, so we'll touch on that in the last part of this webinar, but we do have income share classes available. This is where you can get ISON codes, OCFs, key documents, and just more details around the fund. And then under the resources part is where we upload our fund fact sheets. So there's a timeline, fund, multi asset fund section, and this one holds the prospectus, the kids as well, but also the fund fact sheets, and we do upload all our FAIR fact sheets on this document. If I take the fifty to sixty document and I open it, here, you will see this is the fund fact sheet, and it does have some more information around income yield, the ISIN for the income share class, the ISIN for the act share class, OCFs, and just more information. Performance will show up in a couple of months' time, and then also underlying fund characteristics. And then finally, on the control center, if I jump into analytics, I just want to take some time to show you how a tracker and let's do the one hundred percent equity portfolio, and we do the TM timeline one hundred. I want to show you the main differences between funds at twenty basis points compared to, as I said, seven at near nine basis points on here as well for your DFM fee, then you get to sixteen. On the multi asset fund, they won't pay any DFM fee, so it will just remain twenty basis points. Number of underlying securities, again, it's it looks as if it's a bit more on the TM timeline fund. It's a successive underlying holding. So, again, probably some of those data issues that are coming through, but you would see this it is fairly aligned. I am on the wrong template because I'm not allowed to show performance. So let me just quickly jump to my webinar template, and there you won't see any performance. If you look at the underlying funds, there you go, model portfolio, multi asset fund. You can see the types of companies in the portfolio, it's sort of exactly the same, the size, it's very similar. They could have been in the last couple of days one company that have drifted over from growth to value. And then regional allocation as well, you would see it is fairly in line, North America four basis points difference, so very, very similar on the EM side. Yesterday was a complete rollercoaster ride in in in emerging markets with I think when I logged on to the Bloomberg news at was it nine AM? Chip manufacturers were already down eight percent. So that's probably what you are seeing correcting through years, so that will correct in a couple of days. And then your sectors as well, yeah, you can see it is fairly aligned. So this is just proof. You can go into the control center, play around, have a look at the performance as well. As I've said, in two months' time, we will be able to be a bit more public around the performance of the fund. It's just on any promotional scenario, we're not allowed to show less than twelve months' performance. Then getting back to the slide deck, I want to go into part two of our session before we do the final couple of questions, Jake. This shouldn't take very long, but the final part of this webinar is just why should you use a multi asset fund and why should you use an NPS. So from what we've seen, some of the main reasons why clients are using a multi asset fund, not necessarily main reasons. Some of it was just quite interesting for us to to pick up from adviser conversations, but there are five the obvious one, CGT efficiency, natural income, we do not have income model portfolios or income version share class model portfolios, it's all ACK, but our funds does have income share classes. It pays dividends, not interest, I'll talk about that in a second. Platform options that could be an advantage for advisors as well and then the FSAS protection side on specifically our multi asset fund was quite a big driver from an advisor point of view. So let's go through all these one by one. I think the first one is the CGT efficiency. Is it really such a big advantage to be within a multi asset fund? We've already chosen a You're supposed to be back on your slides now. Oh, is it the slide not Yep. Your screen sharing is paused. Oh, let me try again. Let's try this again. Thank you, Gareth. Is it sharing now? We are. Good. Absolutely. Weird. I've had a notification that says my screen sharing were paused. First time I got that. But, yeah, so this is the only slide you've missed, those five things that are the main advantages. I will go through them one by one, but first of all is the CGT benefit. We get asked the question, is it really a big enough benefit? And for that, I have asked our colleague Georgios to run some numbers and show us that there is a benefit from a CGT point of view. But essentially, if you rebalance within a multi asset fund, as we spoke about, it happens within the fund, no disposal for the client. Every rebalance on a model portfolio does create a disposal for a client. So what does that look like in reality? What you see here on the screen is the backtested version of the timeline tracker portfolio, and you can see the triangles that was actual rebalances based on ten percent drift. And then you will see the diamond shape. Those are strategic asset allocation changes. I don't really like the word strategic asset allocation. It was because the asset allocation remains the same. It was just the different underlying funds. We've introduced institutional share classes and then reintroduced some more underlying funds in January. But what you could see is this is how the typical fund behaves within a ten percent rebalancing threshold. For the first couple of years, you can see how it actually increased to about five percent, and then the markets did most of the rebalancing. So there were no reason for us to intervene. Clients were in their risk profile, markets that are rebalancing, clients came back to their strategic asset allocation. Then there was a prolonged bull market, reached ten percent threshold, and we have rebalanced the portfolio. Then for a couple of years, we've had fixed income outperforming equities, vice versa, markets doing most of rebalancing. Twenty twenty, there was a massive reversal. And then after twenty twenty, we ran went into a big bull market, again reached ten percent drift and had to rebalance the portfolio. Towards the end of twenty twenty twenty two, we got institutional share class access from Vanguard Legal and General. That's when we made those changes to bring the cost down from fourteen basis points, was it to, I believe, eight basis eight or nine basis points. Again, market drift, it has almost reached ten basis points. In January this year, we decided, given that there's a significant drift in there and we now want to align the multi asset fund with the tracker, we've done another rebalance. So not a lot of rebalances over a, what's it, twelve year period, but it just shows you within an NPAs, there will be trading events. It's unavoidable. We have to rebalance clients. We have to do due diligence on underlying funds, and we have to make sure that the portfolio remains efficient. What's the benefit for the client? Well, this is the numbers that George has ran for us. So what I want you to imagine is this blue line, that is a multi asset fund, so the timeline tracker without any CGT consequences. The red line, that's the timeline tracker portfolio with CGT being paid, net of CGT. We've assumed a flat three thousand pounds allowance. I do not want to go here into advice. You guys are the experts when it comes to taxes and advice. This is just I want to show you the numbers behind it. But here you can see the impact of after tax return and pre tax returns. The value gap, that's the difference between the blue line and the red line. Blue line meaning you've never paid CGT capital gains tax, you've rolled it up every single year. Red line, you've paid your CGT taxes as and when. There was a significant tax bill over year because it was quite a long period of bull market returns, and then all of a sudden, every single underlying fund were changed into institutional share classes or into other funds as well. So that was quite a big tax bill, and then you've increased again, and then you've had several tax bills in all your other events as well. Outcome, the cumulative CGT paid was a total of GBP twenty thousand. That's not the full benefit because the client will still have to pay CGT within the multi asset fund at some point, but that has created an eleven percent tax drag on the portfolio as you because there is a benefit to roll up capital gains and let that extension of payment or that delayed tax payment accumulate. And that accumulation you can think of your value gap minus your cumulative, about five thousand pounds. That was more or less the tax benefit that you have received within a multi asset fund. So, it's fairly significant if you have a client that's going to hold a long term GIA to put it within a multi asset fund and not within an MPS. But even within an MPS, the way we do our ten percent rebalancing does reduce that frequency a lot, and we do let you accumulate before we do actual CGT rebalances. Now, the second reason is income share classes. Again, there's not a lot to talk about when it comes to just something that we were able to do. So when we've built the multi asset fund, all underlying funds that we selected are income share classes that allows us to create a Inc. Multi asset fund as well. I've had a client query come through a couple of months ago that asked me they've got a trust client that has to take an annual income of sixty one thousand. It was a portfolio of two point seven five million. Which of our NPS products would I recommend? They need natural income. Solution was, well, we do not have a solution on an NPS side, but on the multi asset side, we do actually have. So our TM Timeline Fund is paying a two point three six percent yield at the moment based on the May fund fact sheet. So income was fully covered with the TM Timeline fifty percent to seventy percent equity fund. So that's sort of just a working example of where natural income was suitable for this specific client. Another one, and again, I just have to disclose it here, is not to be a tax adviser because I certainly do not know I certainly am not an expert here. But we do get the question quite frequently, are our funds paying dividends or interests? Because the fund has to pay either one of the two. There's a sixty percent rule, and that sixty percent rule essentially says that if a fund holds more than sixty percent of qualifying assets, which you can read as interest bearing assets, the fund will have to pay interest if not, it will have to pay dividends. Because our multi asset funds and I'll talk about the thirty percent to fifty percent one in a second, but all the other ones will always be more than forty percent equities for a whole calendar year, so they will pay dividends and not interest. The thirty percent to fifty percent equity, we expect it to be above forty percent equity mostly. There could be a rebalance and then a market correction, and the fund could be less than forty percent. It has to be less than forty percent equity for a full calendar year, and then it will pay interest and not dividends. So I just add to caveat that it's possible for the thirty to fifty to pay interest and not dividends, but probably very unlikely. And, again, we've had an adviser that reached out about a corporate client not paying capital or not paying dividend tax, but interest tax. And as dividends, if their corporation was exempt, you would retain a full twenty three thousand six hundred pounds on this million pound investment if you take the two point three six percent yield. If you were paying interest and the corporation would tax that interest, it would have been seventeen thousand seven hundred pounds Again, don't quote the numbers, just a working example of what that benefit could look like. We've had about three or four advisers raising this point that for certain investors, it could be it could be beneficial getting dividends and not interest. So just making it, putting it out there that these funds are paying dividends without distributing dividends and not interest. Platform availability, that's probably a bigger benefit for us as a DFM. There are some platforms that just don't have the best DFM functionalities. There are certain platforms that are easier to operate on than other platforms. You can imagine we are monitoring every single underlying investor, so from an NPAs point of view, it's quite intensive. From a multi asset fund point of view, we manage one fund irrespective on how many platforms it is. So if you want the fund available platform and the platform is willing to onboard the fund, we will support it and get that fund available on that specific platform. Again, I also just wanna caveat, we are not putting the fund on D2C platforms. Timeline is an adviser led business. We want advisors to be the distributors of this fund. And then also, the last point, FSAS protection, already touched on it earlier, but for us, when we reached out to our advisers and asked them what's important when we launched a multi asset fund, the message was that a lot of advisers get comfortable around the fact that they do have FSAS protection. So, yes, within owner's vehicle, you do have your eighty five thousand pounds FSCS protection per underlying fund. But if you have to break it down and in in reality or in a practical sense, that is a decent protection, but your real protection lies in the structure. So I'm glad we had that question around the regulatory structure, but that is where the protection comes from. It's that independent ACD. Should Timeline do anything that is not in the interest of investor, the ACD, I can promise you they will act. Segregated custody, your assets are being ring fenced in a custodian account, most usually offshore, so the fund manager or the platform or timeline doesn't hold the underlying assets. And then also it is highly regulated and authorized by the FSCL. So these are typically your main safeguards. This is where the FSCA does not protect against declining asset prices. So if you take people that lost money in the Woodford funds couldn't claim from the FSA because there was a decline in asset prices. They are protecting against mismanagement of funds. And again, we don't own the assets, the assets are being green fenced, so the possibility of claiming against a typical index fund, it's not impossible, but it is very, very similar. Now just to balance everything, because I it might sound like I am pro multi asset funds and empty MPS, and that is not the case. MPS certainly does have its place. As you've seen, it is still cheaper, sixteen basis points relative to twenty basis points. In our case, the transparency could be key. I wish we could platforms could show underlying holdings of a multi asset fund as well. That's unfortunately not the case. So investors sometimes do want to see in what fund managers that do invest in. The wrapper, I think, to a large degree dictates the decision. So ISAS and pensions as an NPAs, you don't need to sort of optimize for CGT tax within ISAS and pensions. So an NPAs probably, given that it's still cheaper, you get more transparency. That's where you want to host that majority of assets. In theory, there could be some tax loss harvesting done within a model portfolio service. You can't do that within a fund because you just have a single unit of the fund that represents all underlying assets. But the model portfolio service, you could, in theory, unlink some certain assets and do tax loss harvesting in that way. And then also we spoke about barriers to entry. Model portfolios, it's quite easy to, if you have permission as a firm to design a new portfolio, build it on a platform, and there you go. But within a multi asset fund, you need to go through that regulatory approval, get a new fund set up. It's quite expensive. Yes, regulations. And it is a process that does require a lot of demand to break even. So, Jake, I'm gonna pause there and see if there's any questions, and then we can just wrap up at the end. Yeah. Definitely. Think it's a good show. Yeah. We definitely got a few. So let's start off with Mark, and this is from Mark Rowe. As a new timeline offering, what assurance is there for the longevity of the multi asset fund range? For example, minimum overall AUM to ensure it continues, risk of closure if in if sufficient AUM over the last three years, etcetera, etcetera. Yeah. Good good question because it is a new fund. The way I would get comfortable behind a new fund is to look at what sits behind it, And that's the way we look at new at at fund managers as well. Yes, it's always ideal to invest in a fund that has at least a three year track record, but when we go into and we talk to whether it's Northern Trust or Vanguard or somebody they want to launch a new fund for us, we would assess things like how much capital sits behind it, will it form part of another strategy, who are the team that sits behind it. So from a timeline multi asset fund point of view, yes, the timeline tracker is just an extension of the multi asset fund. It's a different vehicle to hold some of that funds, but you should see sort of our tracker portfolio as I don't know what the exact AUM at the moment is, but roughly five billion pounds and the multi asset fund sits alongside that tracker beast. So there's a lot of capital that supports the tracker portfolio. You can use the tracker don't use the tracker's official backtested results, but given that the underlying holdings are exactly the same, you can sort of use that as a proxy for how the multi asset fund will perform. Fund closure, I mean, that's the reality of the market. I think any fund manager that stands in front of you and says, This fund will never close, it cannot close, they are lying to you. So survivability of funds are really important. That's why we are not going ahead and launching a classic anti ESG tracker and classic strategy all at once. We want to make sure the demand is there. We want to make sure the fund can stand on its own, and then we'll move to the next fund. And we are now at a point where we are moving to the next fund, so the fund is sustainable, it is growing, and what I can tell you is the pipeline coming into flows into the fund are really strong. So those were the things to be that I can assess, but unfortunately, you have to be honest and say something could happen and the fund could cease to exist. That could happen with any fund, a Vanguard fund, a TimeLine fund, but the bigger picture and the support that you get around that, think from TimeLine's point of view is pretty robust. Cool, I hope that helped Mark. So we have from Duncan. What is the total number of equity holdings in the hundred percent equity multi asset fund? Then on the back of that, it says apologies, look Duncan, no need to apologize. I should clarify that I'm asking how many different equities are held, not number of overlapping holdings between the different sub funds held in the multi asset fund one hundred? Yeah, fair question. So we try to get rid of overlapping holdings, and it certainly has been achieved to a large extent. Well, Morningstar tries to tries to do this, it's not always possible. So if you have ten funds that hold a thousand securities, it's possible to see ten thousand securities, but it might all be the same securities, a thousand. The MSCI World Index currently has about a thousand six hundred, thousand seven hundred underlying securities. Emerging markets, two thousand two hundred. So the number that you are seeing of roughly four thousand is the number of underlying equities. On the fixed income side of the fund, and just quickly run to the control center, it is three thousand eight hundred and sixty three to be exact. And bonds are slightly different. You shouldn't look at it as a single as a number because if you have a billion pounds, you cannot buy ten issues. The issues are just not big enough. You have to buy more issues of the same issuer. So as these funds grow and as the underlying bond funds grow, you should start to see more bonds in there, but it doesn't mean diversification. It could just be another ten year issue from the UK government that we already hold in another shape. But, yes, the answer is about four thousand. Great. So the last two so far. From Andrew, is there a plan to bring the multi asset fund that sits closer to the classic NPS rather than tracker? Yes. So, Andrew, sorry give you I've I've probably addressed that right at the start, but, yes, we are going to launch a a classic multi asset fund. It is coming. I cannot commit to time frames. If I had to commit to the time frame on the tracker multi asset or the timeline multi asset fund, I would have been fired because we were aiming to get it done last year, May, and the launch was twelfth August. So we are what I can say is we are actively working towards it, but I cannot commit to a time frame, but it will come. There we go, Andrew. And then from Anthony, is there a sweet spot for the NPS first multi asset fund in GIA? Good question. This is now where we step into adviser territory. But yes, Anthony, I do think when I've done my research, a lot of clients said that they would still use GIAs for MPS for very large GIAs. I don't know what the argument behind that is because the CGT will just be even bigger. Most advisers are saying that big ones should be in a multi asset fund, but given that you might want a bit more flexibility for a very large pool, it could be that an NPS is just that flexibility is worth more than the tax bill. And then also, the complete other side of the spectrum, people would argue that a multi asset fund or for very small clients, they do not suit a fully fledged NPS solution, so let's drop them into a multi asset fund. But I've also seen clients that say, well, these guys are going to accumulate over how many years of putting them in a multi asset fund. It's very difficult, and I think it does come down to individual client needs. Great. So we'll do the final one, then we'll do the we'll do the the takeaways. We'll do start the wrap up. I think it's a great shout. So it's from Andy. With the NPS, is there a change in risk outlook, up or down, with the percentage of the portfolio that needs to be amended is limited? With the multi asset, would it potentially require a full sale? Is there any way around this? Let's just quickly look at it again. So with MPS, is there a with MPS, if there is a change in risk outlook up or down, okay, then the percentage of the portfolio that needs to be amended is limited. True. With the multi asset fund, it would potentially require a full sale. Is there any way around this? That's a good question and it touches on the point of risk targeting and risk mapping. So our portfolios are not risk targeted. Risk targeted would mean we aim to we build our portfolio to be a qualitative factor six. And if there's any changes in the outlook from the facto's point of view, we would make changes to make sure it remains a six. That does happen very rarely because these rating agencies are forward looking. So if that's the case, our multi asset funds are not officially mapped against any of these rating agencies. Our view would be that you do stress test your portfolio in the first instance it's always going to be sort of within the address boundaries. But yes, as an adviser, if you do follow a very rigid this has to be a six out of ten and your system says it's a six out of ten and the fund goes to seven, yes, that is a downside. You would then have to probably move to the lower multi asset fund or buy some more of the lower multi asset fund. When a multi when an MPS, you could make individual changes within the portfolio. At Timeline, we won't do that. We will just re rate the portfolio if that ever happens because we do know how portfolios are risk rated, and there isn't a single risk rating agency that agrees with another one. So we sort of take a very long term approach and risk map our portfolios and don't target a specific risk. Any plans for a one hundred percent bond multi asset fund used by large GIAs to keep long term investment growth inside ISAL? That's a good argument, Dew, and we've had several clients that have reached out to us about bond specific instruments or just short term bonds to get that tax benefit. I don't want to say it's not going to happen, it's all demand driven. Currently, there's no prospect or it's not in the pipeline for us, But please reach out to us. Let us know exactly the use case and what the what the demand for it is. It might be something that there is a massive demand for, we are just not aware of it, and then we can certainly look into into the feasibility of it. And finally oh, I saw you all sent me the screen is still on the analysis screen. That was that was my my fault. And as the new timeline offering, what assurance is there for the longevity? Okay. You've we've we've Yes. Yeah. So the ones in the chat rolled up. Real caught up now. Just in time as well. So I think we'll take away and then we're on time. We're on time. Rare for us. Let's take it. More. The takeaway. So I think just finally from my side, first of all, thanks everybody for for for joining the session. It was really great. We've had a couple of sessions around the multi asset fund in the past, but this one was really just to go a little bit deeper into the multi asset fund. Jake, can you see my screen? Absolutely. Okay. Good. So just the key takeaways for us is the tracker and the TimeLine multi asset funds are really the same strategy. It's just two different trappers. I always get a little bit annoyed when people talk about or ask me how do I feel about ETFs, and then they mean passive investments. An ETF is just a vehicle like a fund is just a vehicle. We do see this multi asset fund as part of our Total Tracker strategy, but there are use cases for those vehicles. In most cases, the wrapper decides where you go MPS multi asset fund, especially if it's driven by GIA. The fund's edge, as I've said, is certainly the tax, and then for us, it's the simplicity. I do not have to well, I think we do about thirty thousand and James, if he was on the call, will probably tell him it's not thirty thousand, it's fifty thousand accounts. We do not manage fifty thousand individual accounts within the fund. It's one account. So simplicity is really keen for for us in a multi asset fund. And then also, just to be clear, the NPAs does still win in a lot of cases. If you cost advantages are there, the transparency are there, ISAS pensions do not have CGT liabilities. So yes, those were all the four main key takeaways that we have from today's session. So with that, I am going to stop sharing my screen. Just thank you very much for everybody that joined us today, and please reach out if you have any other questions that you want to discuss or talk about these multi asset ones.