One portfolio, two cost paths
The label identifies a plan, not a different investment strategy. Buying the direct and regular versions of one scheme does not create two independent sets of underlying holdings. A portfolio review should recognise the common exposure.
Illustrative example: assume a portfolio earns 10% before a simplified annual cost deduction. If Plan A deducts 1 percentage point and Plan B deducts 2, the simplified outcomes are 9% and 8%. These are invented rates to show the mechanism, not actual plan expenses or promised returns.
The cost comparison needs context
Check the actual current total expense ratios for the same scheme and option. Do not compare a direct growth NAV series with a regular distribution series and attribute the entire difference to fees.
Advice is a separate service decision. A lower product expense does not automatically supply research, suitability assessment or behavioural support. Equally, paying distribution costs does not mean that every service you might need is included. Ask what help is provided and how it is paid for.
A useful portfolio check
Record the full scheme, plan and option names from your statement. Combine identical underlying exposures when reviewing diversification. Then assess costs and support as explicit items rather than treating the plan name as a quality ranking.
If you are considering changing an existing holding, check the transaction’s current tax and exit-load consequences separately. A different route for future purchases and a switch of existing units are different actions.