New Investor: VLS 100?
Comments
-
Why would you do that in future as individual shares are much more risky than 100% equities in a diversified VLS100. Maybe look at single sector funds in future to build up a portfolio but not individual shares in my opinion.
Up until you mentioned it I wasn't even aware that you could invest in a single particular sector, but I'm here to learn and I'm very glad you made me aware of that, further reading for me to do, not that I'll be implementing it anytime soon, but it's great to know the options.0 -
This is a pedant's point, but even if you did, it shouldn't affect your decision, unless you were happy to say "I desire to be filthy rich and would like to take a punt at becomign filthy rish whilst understanding that there's a significant chance that I won't end up rich at all". What you want to do is give yourself the best chance of being as wealthy as you can, in years to come. If you're disciplined enough to leave the money alone, then pure equity may be fine. But there are a lot of things you might want that £5k (or other money) for. What happens if you suddenly need money for (some/all of these may not apply in your case) a marriage, a child, twins, a divorce, a debilitating illness to you, ditto for a partner, ditto for a parent, a new car, a big emergency plumbing job, the roof falling in, a course of damp, school fees, a house extension, a deposit for a house, upsizing, an expensive holiday, losing your job. If at that time your money ploughed into shares has had a slide - let's say your £5k which has now turned into £3k - and you decide to take it out to pay for whichever of those things you need (or don't need, but want)? That's £3k for you, and £2k tossed into the wind. It needs iron determiniation not to touch it.I've no desire to be filthy rich
The state pension will never disappear altogether if only because politicians know how valuable the grey vote is.0 -
However it's defined, having over 50% of your equity investments based in the US seems to me to be disproportionate. But others may think it's fine.
To be honest, I don't know ~exactly~ what my regional allocations are, but I currently use VLS60, L&G MI6 and HSBC Global Strategy Balanced in roughly equal proportions.
I won't pretend that the proportions are anything more accurate than rough approximations of what I feel is about right - because I've never felt that there is any point in being too precise about these things.
I'm interested in the HSBC Global Strategy funds. But the amount in these funds is comparitviely very small - 5 figures. Should this be a concern?0 -
I'm interested in the HSBC Global Strategy funds. But the amount in these funds is comparitviely very small - 5 figures. Should this be a concern?
5 figures would be between £10k and £100k ???
Looking on HL for HMWO it's £252Million USD which is a tadge above about £200M I'd guess. Nine figures.0 -
Yes, that's a concern.I'm interested in the HSBC Global Strategy funds. But the amount in these funds is comparitviely very small - 5 figures. Should this be a concern?
The concern is that if you are reading reports and factsheets where figures are in thousands and you are assuming they are in pounds because you haven't read them properly, what else are you missing?
Per the factsheets for Dynamic, Cautious and Balanced:
Latest NAV date 17-July-2017
AUM 53,467,860.57 GBP
Latest NAV date 17-July-2017
AUM 51,580,525.43 GBP
Latest NAV date 17-July-2017
AUM 114,048,053.49 GBP
I would agree that total assets across the portfolios in the low £200 millions is not massive (there are many larger multi-asset funds) - but for example, if they decided to close down the products, given the investments held by the HSBC products are large and liquid funds, it's not like all the investors would have to take a huge haircut in a fire sale.
Funds with lower assets under management find it inherently more difficult to produce a low percentage operating cost, but you would see that in the OCF and net returns before you decide to buy. Within reason, as long as the OCF isn't too outrageous, the difference in returns from asset allocation versus the other direct competitor multi-asset funds will dwarf the difference in returns that come from operating costs.0 -
Sorry meant 8 figures.
Sarcasm is not an attractive quality by the way.0 -
I do have VLS 100%, but now I have a little more experience in funds, the 23% in the UK is worrying only because of Brexit. I'll be swapping soon. About 6% in UK is something I feel comfortable with and that will be FTSE 100 only.0
-
I do have VLS 100%, but now I have a little more experience in funds, the 23% in the UK is worrying only because of Brexit. I'll be swapping soon. About 6% in UK is something I feel comfortable with and that will be FTSE 100 only.
Interesting that you feel the FTSE100 is a better option considering it has been one of the worst performing indexes for over 20 years. It is also one of the most imbalanced indexes as well.
The 250 is spread for average UK businesses.
Whilst some posters on this site focus on their view that the UK is over exposed, most other sites have a criticism over its high US weighting.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Interesting that you feel the FTSE100 is a better option considering it has been one of the worst performing indexes for over 20 years. It is also one of the most imbalanced indexes as well.
The 250 is spread for average UK businesses.
Whilst some posters on this site focus on their view that the UK is over exposed, most other sites have a criticism over its high US weighting.
Disclaimer, I'm new to this but learning. This is what I'm thinking right now.
Yes the FTSE 250 is better over the FTSE 100 however purely thinking about Brexit as it has the chances of crashing the market. The FTSE 100 will recover better because of it's international links. At least that's my thinking, open to the fact I could be wrong.
Maybe the US is a little too much but the UK weighting is way more disproportional I feel 40% weighting of the US is ok. I have this weighting set for my DIY virtual portfolio, which I want to move to but will run it virtually for a bit longer.0 -
However it's defined, having over 50% of your equity investments based in the US seems to me to be disproportionate. But others may think it's fine.
To be honest, I don't know ~exactly~ what my regional allocations are, but I currently use VLS60, L&G MI6 and HSBC Global Strategy Balanced in roughly equal proportions.
I won't pretend that the proportions are anything more accurate than rough approximations of what I feel is about right - because I've never felt that there is any point in being too precise about these things.
It's your decision but why those three, I can sort of understand two, or maybe smaller satellite funds in niche areas im addition to give a tilt, but those three use different strategies and approaches.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
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards