Using income funds as part of growth strategy for pension portfolio
Options
Comments
-
I think the more you chase high yield from bonds, the higher the correlation is likely to be with equities. If you want a low correlation, I would look at short duration, high quality/gilt funds but don’t expect high returns and expect some losses over the next couple of years.0
-
bowlhead99 wrote: »The phrase "even VLS funds have only 25% UK Equity" as if for you to imply that VLS funds are generically a low risk way of investing, is not something that makes sense to do, IMHO. As I mentioned in the earlier post, a couple of rival multi-asset funds with similar charges (L&G MI and Blackrock Consensus) have higher proportions of UK equity.
L&G MI is risk targeted while VLS is performance targeted in fixed ratios of holdings. You can see on the recent charts, VLS 60 and especially VLS 80 have had a very high relative recent performance in their mini league table of "mixed assets, 40-85% equities". Reasons for that include having a high overseas component within their equities, particularly US component, at a time where foreign markets performed quite well and sterling weakened significantly making the overseas holdings more valuable in pounds.
They have 75% of their equities overseas and the UK equities they hold are concentrated in companies with non-UK revenues. So, no wonder they are flying high in the charts when UK has a relative poor year. But something like a VLS80 with that exposure is relatively high risk. VLS80 has done almost 30% in a year and 40% in three. Funds performing like that do not necessarily fit with an 'average' risk profile.
Sure, many of us do hold that sort of ratio if it chimes with our risk appetite but if someone is not looking for that level of volatility (especially if they have hinted to us and perhaps their advisor that they are looking to hold lower levels of equities because they already have a separate pension crammed with smaller companies, emerging markets etc) it is easy to understand why the OP's advisor suggested higher exposure to domestic assets.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, yes half your equities domestic is pretty high, and many might put a greater proportion of them overseas.
However, the fact that one particular poster (MonroeM) - who only started looking into investments four months ago - is deliberately looking for a low exposure to the UK because of what she perceives as a "current climate of uncertainty" and as a result is targeting 15% home country equity is certainly not something that you can extrapolate and say that most IFA portfolios would only be 15-20% UK.
Generally if someone says they are concerned about a climate of uncertainty, they do not go and put a massive proportion of their money in a foreign country. So, she is perhaps tilting her portfolio out of naivety rather than you being able to infer that she is doing it out of insight borne of years of investing experience (we know she does not have much in the way of investing experience over the last few economic cycles - she has nil, having acquired her portfolio on divorce and only looked into it at the back end of last year). She has just read some things, agrees with them and is doing a low-UK equity plan, which might be the right thing to do or it might not.
This is not me being critical of MonroeM who has probably has learned a lot since being here about what she wants and how she might develop her knowledge and target her investments to create a solution that works for her.
It is just to add a counterpoint to your using her, or VLS, as an example of how an average person should create their portfolios, when you say that 15-20% UK equity is the sweet spot because 'even VLS is only 25% UK' and MonroeM prefers a low percentage so anything more is extremely high.
You seem to be over critical of other people's opinions of their UK equity holdings in their investments? For example, most people with a 100 per cent equity portfolio , especially in trackers, would only hold around 8 per cent UK in their portfolio?
I would have thought it is totally reasonable to place a maximum of 20 per cent in a portfolio, however, obviously you know better and as an experienced investor/poster maybe we should bow to your knowledge!0 -
I use HDIV and IPE for income so growth, or lack of it, is a secondary concern for me. If you are looking for income and diversity from equities maybe consider direct property (e.g. F&C Commercial Property Trust Ltd - FCPT) or infrastructure (HICL Infrastructure Company Ltd - HICL) thoughit usually trades at a high premiumI'm looking at CQS New City High Yield (NCYF) and City Merchants High Yield (CMHY) in the UK Equity & Bond Income sector and Henderson Diversified Income (HDIV) and Invesco Perpetual Enhanced Income (IPE) in Global High Income sector.0 -
Thanks ColdIron. Infrastructure is on my purchase list too. HICL as you mentioned and John Laing Infrastructure (JLIF) are the two I'm looking at. Current thinking is maybe to buy both.
I can't make up my mind on property. I'm half tempted by Value And Income Trust (VIN), which has a separately run property portfolio, making up 30% of its holdings. That might give me sufficient property exposure overall. The trust has a decent yield and something like 29 consecutive years of increasing dividends, which certainly ticks the income box.0 -
No, everyone has their own opinion which is fine.You seem to be over critical of other people's opinions of their UK equity holdings in their investments?
It is just the extrapolation that says "x% is high because I personally have a low amount and this other person has a low amount and Vanguard Lifestrategy which has a lower amount than some of its popular rivals has 25% of its equities in the UK therefore most IFAs would do15-20% of a portfolio unless there were exceptional circumstances. You can't extrapolate views of a vocal minority across the average population.
No, that is also a baseless inference. Most UK investors with a 100% equity portfolio would not hold 8% UK in their portfolio. They would only hold 6-8% in their portfolio if they were allocating their entire portfolio based on the UK share of the world stockmarket by free float market capitalisation. Few do that.For example, most people with a 100 per cent equity portfolio , especially in trackers, would only hold around 8 per cent UK in their portfolio?
To pick up an example of that Vanguard offering mentioned earlier, they are 25% UK. L&G Multi Index is higher. Blackrock Consensus is quite a lot higher (driven, as it is, by the consensus from the pensions universe). Go to a list of global equities funds at trustnet or morningstar available to UK investors and start clicking on them at random (ignoring the ones that are specifically ex-UK funds). See what proportion have 8% or less in the UK. That is not the average appetite.
You say 'especially if using trackers'. But even if you are using trackers for the individual industry or geographic components (like something like the aforementioned VLS fund does) because you consider them to be better than active management in certain markets, that is not the same as saying I want 92-95% of my shares to be listed on foreign markets rather than domestic UK. The 'most people especially if using trackers would only have about 8% in UK', is fake news.
What you mean is that people exclusively allocating their portfolio based on global market cap would have 5-8% depending on which particular global index they were using, but that is certainly not most people.
I am not trying to pretend I am god's gift to personal finance. It is totally reasonable to put a maximum at whatever level you like if you have some sound reasoning for it, and there is no issue with you telling people that is what you have done and why you have done it.I would have thought it is totally reasonable to place a maximum of 20 per cent in a portfolio, however, obviously you know better and as an experienced investor/poster maybe we should bow to your knowledge!
However, this site gets a lot of newbies and we try to help them on their journey.
- It is misleading to others to say that most people only have 8% just because you read a blog that said one way to do it was to only have 8%.
- It is misleading to say that most people have 15-20% at most and and IFAs wouldn't use more unless there are real exceptional circumstances, when plenty of mixed asset portfolio funds, workplace pension default allocations, and IFA portfolios have greater.
It is surprising to do as some inexperienced posters have done and say they don't like 'uncertain' markets so they are going to aim to put more in foreign countries which also have uncertain markets and greater currency risk. The point of highlighting that in the earlier post was not to ask anyone to bow to me, but to point out the incongruity of it and to say that an inexperienced investor doing that should not be extrapolated across the whole population as if it is what people normally do (especially those advised by IFAs)0 -
I think they are both reasonable although I have never got around to pulling the trigger on JL.Thanks ColdIron. Infrastructure is on my purchase list too. HICL as you mentioned and John Laing Infrastructure (JLIF) are the two I'm looking at. Current thinking is maybe to buy both.
HICL is one which has done very well and been at a premium for quite some time now. This had caused me to sell up over a few stages as it is not going to be priced like that forever. However, with their current 159p rights issue/placing and having lots of other things with high one-to-three year returns to pull some cash out of, I have applied to buy some more via that offer in addition to buying some on the market (and my parents were be picking up a few thousand too for their ISAs). However none of us are buying to actively take an income from it, just as a diversifier from other types of holdings.
I guess the question is whether it is better to buy something like that which has an affiliate run a specialist direct commercial property bit of the portfolio for them alongside the main equities bit. The key bit to ask is whether operating as a conglomerate with fingers in two pies, they are bringing to the table something different that you couldn't get for yourself just by putting £3k in a closed ended commercial property fund and £7k into an equity income trust.I can't make up my mind on property. I'm half tempted by Value And Income Trust (VIN), which has a separately run property portfolio, making up 30% of its holdings. That might give me sufficient property exposure overall. The trust has a decent yield and something like 29 consecutive years of increasing dividends, which certainly ticks the income box.
If the answer is "yes, for example if they want to be opportunist and add a couple of new properties they can just fund it out of their big liquid pool of stocks without having to go fundraising or hold lots of cash on hand just in case", then that is perhaps structurally a good way to do it and a USP. Some fund vehicles in other sectors work on similar lines. I don't know anything about this particular one.
However, if the dual-pronged portfolio is just saving some nominal amount of central admin costs for listing and AGMs etc and giving you a diversification benefit, the diversification element can pretty much be ignored because you already know how to build a diversified set of holdings.
Perhaps another question is if you can't make up your mind on property generally, are there some subsectors of property you find it easier to say you can make up your mind on? For example you could find a specialist vehicle to hold a portfolio of UK care homes and another to hold a portfolio of Berlin residential apartments, both of which you see as a decent source of income with growth potential, but perhaps you don't want to buy 'big box' logistics warehouses or Canary Wharf skyscrapers or ports or transport hubs, being fearful of our economic output post-brexit, so you would avoid those ones.
Obviously that requires a more hands-on approach than just saying you can or can't get on board with commercial property in general and buying or not-buying the relevant generalist fund or Reit.0 -
Consider someone whose biggest equity investment (his house) is in the UK, whose biggest bond investment (his future State Pension and DB pension, say) is in the UK, and whose Personal Capital (present value of future earnings) is in the UK.
You could argue that it might be wise to hold most of the rest of his wealth as foreign investments.
Yes, you could argue that but you would have to be very careful with the argument.
That same hypothetical someone is likely to have most of their life costs in the UK. They may even have debt obligations (mortgage?) to fund in the UK.
Whilst the precise balance of a balanced portfolio is always up for debate, holding 'most of the rest of his wealth as foreign investments' would be a strategy not to be undertaken lightly.0 -
One problem with diversifying across the world in proportion to region investment wealth or whatever formula you prefer is the added currency risk. My foreign holdings did fabulously last year because of the devaluation, but it "could" just as well go the other way. So a slightly higher UK exposure may well be valid.0
-
One problem with diversifying across the world in proportion to region investment wealth or whatever formula you prefer is the added currency risk. My foreign holdings did fabulously last year because of the devaluation, but it "could" just as well go the other way. So a slightly higher UK exposure may well be valid.
Is the currency risk really a significant concern? It is only large if the £ behaves very differently to the average of all other major countries. Which is more likely? A large short term drop in the £s value or a large increase? As a country highly dependent on international trade it cant succeed if its currency varies greatly from the international average. And if it doesnt succeed you are presumably better off with an international portfolio.0 -
Is the currency risk really a significant concern?
You could very well be right in the long term. I just remember times when my UK funds performed better then others in the 90s and 00s, and the problem with nation debt nowadays means that not only is there an incentive to inflate it away as much as possible but also a race to devalue as much as you can get away with.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards