Although we have been given nothing to work with (Exempt amount? Maximum Fund cap? Annual ISK Tax rate? Fees by providers on entry or annually? Minor details like that!!!!), it is still possible to rough out some numbers, mainly to see if it's worth looking at Neo-ISK at all.
I built spreadsheets, making assumptions about these unknowns and the expected growth rate.
I kept it simple: one investment at year 0, comparing an individual stock portfolio with Neo-ISK, where providers would charge annual fees. I think we all know that your individual stock portfolio can be fee-free.
For simplicity I assumed the Neo-ISK and individual share portfolios were identical. It should be clear that future value of an ETF with 38% DD, will perform worse than shares with CGT at 33%.
I've attached an image of my results. The actual numbers don't matter, but my takeaway is that Neo-ISK will outperform individual shares liable to CGT up to the limit of the Neo-ISK, the "CAP".
Because I'm applying simple exponential growth and assuming the same growth pa for shares and the ISK assets, the ratio of outperformance doesn't significantly change - the value of the total pot does.
The Neo ISK may beat shares and CGT by 10% (year 5), 19% (year 10) or 26% (year 15). I'm a pensioner, so anything longer than that may be academic.
This is not analysis. It's an estimate. I am not a financial advisor, you do you, make your own estimate.
I've concluded that I will look critically at the Neo-ISK when it crawls out from under the budget and Simon's ass.
It's not perfect, it may have some unique F*ck-You-Very-Much features, but it may be better than our present alternative humungous CGT and DD/ETF rates.
Food for thought?