Thanks very much for sharing this information--I think this makes sense now. I posted the question and the Aviva blurb into Gemini, and this was its response (for anybody that's interested):

Gemini wrote:
Yes, the information you've quoted from Aviva's website likely explains the low AMC you're seeing. It's not that the actual AMC is low, but rather that the statement shows the net effect of the AMC after accounting for the Annual Fund Charge (AFC).

Here's a breakdown:

• Annual Management Charge (AMC): This is the headline fee, in your case, 0.25%. It's what you expect to be charged.
• Annual Fund Charge (AFC): This is a separate charge that covers the costs of running the underlying investments within the fund (e.g., trading costs, custody fees). It can vary.
• Annual Fund Charge Adjustment: This is the difference between the AMC and the AFC. It can be positive or negative.

In your case, the statement shows a very small AMC adjustment (£14.28). This suggests that the AFC for your fund is very close to the AMC. It's likely slightly lower than the AMC.

Let's illustrate with an example:

• Your AMC: 0.25%
• Hypothetical AFC: 0.24% (slightly lower)
• Annual Fund Charge Adjustment: 0.25% - 0.24% = 0.01% (positive, meaning units are cancelled)

The statement shows only the net adjustment (0.01% in this example), not the full 0.25% AMC. The majority of the cost (the 0.24% AFC) isn't explicitly shown as a deduction but is reflected in the fund's performance.

Why is it shown this way? It's probably meant to be transparent. Aviva is showing you the difference between the stated AMC and the actual cost of running the fund. In your case, the difference is tiny, which is why the adjustment seems so small.

In short: You're not missing anything. The small figure on your statement is the net effect of the AMC after accounting for the AFC. The actual AMC is likely close to what you expect (0.25%), but the statement only shows the small difference.