Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • roxy28
    • By roxy28 6th Mar 17, 5:34 PM
    • 597Posts
    • 57Thanks
    roxy28
    VLS 60 buying more now ok?
    • #1
    • 6th Mar 17, 5:34 PM
    VLS 60 buying more now ok? 6th Mar 17 at 5:34 PM
    I want to add to my above fund again before april, should i just bang it in and not worry its buying less as its price rises.
Page 5
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 9th Mar 17, 2:59 PM
    • 6,327 Posts
    • 11,182 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    You may have missed the risk warning example that I suggested in my post:
    I prefer my example; it is more concise, focussed and does not contain terms such as “hey”, “right” and “you cool with that”

    I thought I was making the uncontroversial point that you should distinguish between risk warnings that apply to a class of investments and those that apply to a specific fund. There are plenty of risk warnings that would apply specifically to the Life Strategy 60 fund but the potential for a 30% loss is not one of them.
    Originally posted by coyrls
    I often get criticised for lengthy posts, so yes being concise is good. So intuitively it makes sense that if you want to warn someone of the risks of a product, the type of people who are in need of the warning might benefit from being told about it in no uncertain terms.

    i.e.: The product you are investing in carries a significant risk of falling in value by x-y%

    Alternatively one could do it in a product-class-wide way as you suggest and say that products that do abcd like the product you are investing in, carry a significant risk of falling in value by x%

    Your message is a little longer because it is trying to educate the person about the class in general. Though general education is usually beneficial, there can be negatives:

    - the person might not be looking for a broader education and be much more receptive to an *even more* concise warning associated with his specific product, even though there are other products out there that carry similar risks (about which the investor has not expressed interest anyway). So the attention might not be drawn to the admittedly concise, but not hyper-exclusively-focused, warning.

    - the discussing of a wider product group in general terms can dilute the message because it shows that all those other products in a wide range carry risk of loss so the newbie investor might think "ah well, maybe it's just what I have to accept if I go for a product from this class that I've been told by someone would be suitable, so there is no way to avoid the 40% loss potential if I want to use S&S investments and multi asset funds like I've been told, so I will go ahead". In other words they cut short the research and just go with it because they don't like it but as they were told lots of other things have that risk and it is normal. So they end up in a product with risks they don't like.

    - as it is talking about a whole class in general terms and you are aware that within the class there may be differences in risk and volatility, it is a broader generalisation. If something has potential to fall 30-40% in a given timescale and you lump it together with a broader class of products that are on average much closer to the 30% end of the scale rather than the 40%, you may end up referring to the general class as having about 30% risk which is a less serious warning than the "30-40" you might assign to the specific product under discussion. So, the warning could come off as being less serious because the odd 30% drop is maybe ok for a person but they would think high 30s drop is nerve wracking. So they could end up with something that they didn't appreciate could fall so much as it then does.

    At the end of the day, your warning is not a bad one, of course not. We are talking nuances as you say. However, on the general point that you think you should make it clear that a risk is common to multiple products and is not a product specific risk, I am not convinced that is something that has to be "front and centre" of the discussion.

    If you don't like any *one* risk that a product has, you can rule the product out. At the same time, you would implicitly be ruling out other similar products which have similar risks. But if you don't like the risk being talked about because it's unacceptable eliminating that product which carries that risk is a key thing to do, . As the first thing on your to do list.

    In doing so it does not really matter that you have ruled out the other products (reduced the pool of acceptable products) for when you go fishing for alternatives later. You can deal with that in the next phase of your search. The important thing is that you have eliminated the unacceptable product about which you had been enquiring. A simple "THIS can drop 40%, can you handle it" is quite useful, and not scaremongering.
    • ColdIron
    • By ColdIron 9th Mar 17, 3:07 PM
    • 3,141 Posts
    • 3,560 Thanks
    ColdIron
    So if your investment has gone up by 50%, and then it's hit by a 30% reduction in a crash, then you're still 20% up.
    Originally posted by jdw2000
    That's right except you're not 20% up

    If you started with 100 and it increased by 50% you would have an extra 50 and a total of 150

    If this 150 suffered a 30% reduction you would be 45 worse off and have a total of 105

    I make that a 5% gain
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 9th Mar 17, 3:23 PM
    • 87,732 Posts
    • 52,980 Thanks
    dunstonh
    If you suffer a 50% loss straight away you will need 100% to get back to the same position you started at.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • JohnRo
    • By JohnRo 9th Mar 17, 3:31 PM
    • 2,306 Posts
    • 2,046 Thanks
    JohnRo
    I cobbled this a while ago to help visualise how easily, in percentage terms, gains can be lost and how difficult large losses can be to recover.

    'We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.' ― Albert Einstein
    'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.' ― Aldous Huxley
    • TheShape
    • By TheShape 9th Mar 17, 3:49 PM
    • 865 Posts
    • 612 Thanks
    TheShape
    If you suffer a 50% loss straight away you will need 100% to get back to the same position you started at.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    But if, after the 50% loss, you add an amount equivalent to half of what you started with, that 100% increase becomes a total gain of 100%.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 9th Mar 17, 4:11 PM
    • 6,327 Posts
    • 11,182 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    Do you have a source for this assertion? Remember that a correlation of 1 is totally correlated, 0 is uncorrelated, and -1 is totally negatively correlated. As of November 2016, U.S. bonds had a 12-month correlation with large-cap U.S. stocks of -0.07. Just because two classes are both going up in annual terms doesn't mean they are correlated.
    Originally posted by TheTracker
    I agree of course that two things going up together doesn't imply correlation, nor causation. However, the fact that since 2009 equities have been on a strong bull run while many bond total return indices have been going up at well over their coupon rates, mean you have an environment where the movement of bond prices over multi year periods were positively correlated with, rather than negatively correlated with, the values of equities. Largely due to QE, with some currency effects on unhedged overseas bonds and so on.

    You mention a close-to-zero correlation score of two indices over a 1 year period ended three months ago at US election time. But 1 year is not much of a timeframe. 3 years would seem to be bare minimum.

    If you go onto Trustnet or similar data tool and bring up Vanguard's Global Bond Index fund (the backbone of the VLS bond component), added to your "basket" alongside the Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex UK index fund (the backbone of the VLS global equity component) you get a 3 year correlation score of 0.42.

    That is relatively weak correlation (example, Dev World ex UK compared to UK Allshare is stronger at 0.76)... But it is far from being a negative correlation and it is significantly above a zero correlation. Obviously it's not going to be +1.0, which isn't what I'm suggesting of course.

    So I'm comfortable saying generically that bonds in recent years have been correlated with - if not in lockstep with - equities. They have both shot up in the last seven years. Likewise they could both fall at the same time so if/when your overseas equities are falling 50% in sterling your bonds are not necessarily gong to be going the other way to offset them. They are of course very unlikely to fall as fast so will still act as a "brake" but you wouldn't bank on correlation being 0 or -0.5 or similar.
    I do not see how that stands to reason. Such passive products will generally float in that noisy sea around the 2nd quartile. If a 'bad year' means stock crashes, I don't see your logic that says that changes where in a table such products will land.
    People put mixed asset funds in pigeon holes. If we take VLS80 for example it sits in the "mixed asset, 40-85% equity" table.

    However that pile of investment funds occupying the "league table" has a vast range of risk profiles.

    - The VLS fund for example is in a pigeon hole where its apparent "competitors" may have a fixed or variable equity component going up to 85% at very top end. VLS80 is permanently no less than 80%. It has pretty much the highest equity component in its "mini-league". In an equity bull run it will do awesome. In an equity crash it will be terrible and other end of the league

    -VLS fund has 75% of its equities overseas and its UK equities are majority FTSE100 with high dollar revenues. That is a higher overseas equity and foreign currency component than most UK investors accept, so it is higher risk from that perspective and in sterling weakness it will do awesome but in sterling strengthening it would be poor and other end of the league

    - VLS non equity component is 100% bonds while other things in the mini league will use a mixture of bonds, real estate maybe a bit of gold or other commodities or multi-strategy solutions like currency plays or whatever. Some rivals are pure equity/bond, but many aren't. As we mentioned, bonds have been on a 30 year bull run until last year. So when you pull up a chart for five years, the VLS non-equity component did nicely thanks to the bull run, and maybe better than the other competitors in the mini league whose non equities bit on average had a broader mix of some bonds, some "other non-equities". As such, VLS did well but if bonds fall next to other non-equities it will push them towards other ends of the table.

    Basically, VLS as a product range was well positioned for the specific set of circumstances we experienced since VLS launch in July 2011. It tops the table in the widely-drawn mixed asset categories and people recommend it.

    There is a risk that some investors think that because it topped the table in the good years it will be better at surviving the bad years because the reason it topped the table was due to vanguard being competent, reliable and cheap. Ok cheap is a part of it. But instead the performance was really due to how the static asset mix was positioned. It pushed them right to one end of the table. Opposite economic circumstances could push them right to the other.

    I do understand your comment that a tracker might be mid table (2nd quartile you think, let's not rehash the argument) in good times and also mid table (2nd quartile you think) in bad times. That's how general index trackers behave. But a fund of tracker funds is not a single tracker.

    The point that you were pulling me up on was from an observation which stemmed from the fact that the VLS products are not really showing as mid table / lower second quartile at the moment, as you infer they will be and will stay. At the moment, they are top of the pops. And that premium position well above mid table comes from their pretty rigid asset allocation which was lucky. If instead it was UNlucky, they would not simply be sitting around in the second quartile. They would have larger losses than many.

    The solution of course is to get better "league tables" somehow, which try to risk grade these funds by volatility or something other than just an equity percentage. But unfortunately, casual retail investors will not be doing that as the popular common search tools don't really let you do that and their DIY platforms (which are keen to lump funds together for simple "usability") do not help.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 09-03-2017 at 6:50 PM.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 9th Mar 17, 4:39 PM
    • 6,327 Posts
    • 11,182 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    But if, after the 50% loss, you add an amount equivalent to half of what you started with, that 100% increase becomes a total gain of 100%.
    Originally posted by TheShape
    So the solution could be, assuming you are at the top of a boom ready to invest, only ever invest 2/3 of what you want to invest, then when it crashes 50%, invest the other 1/3 (being half what you originally invested) at the bargain price of 50p in the pound. Then after waiting anything from two to ten years until price is back where it all started at a pound, tranche two will have doubled (100% gain) and tranche one will have recovered back to the beginning for 0% gain.

    So at that point, end of the economic cycle you would have your tranche one 2 which is back up to its starting 2, and tranche two 1 which turned into 2, so overall you have turned 3 into 4 for a 33% gain.

    Alternatively if you had just invested mid way through the cycle when things were not at peaks, you could have invested everything at a price of 75p (instead of 2/3 at 100 and 1/3 at 50p) and seen it go up to 100p, t growing your overall total by 33%.

    Of course, we don't really know where we are in the cycle so it isn't clear if we should go all in (hoping today is the "75p" point), or assume today is the "100p" point and leave a third uninvested for the "expected" 50% crash. It is just an unwinnable game of trying to time the market with cash on the sidelines.

    One thing is clear, if you gamble strongly on one approach being right, you will be disappointed of the other was better. This is where the oft used cliche "it's 'time in the market', not timing it" mantra comes from.

    Generally if you invest as spare investible money becomes available from salary or other income etc, you will probably be fine over the long long long term, but the large inevitable downturns will happen whether you are mentally prepared or not, so if you find it difficult to mentally prepare for them, consider products which are unlikely to have peak-to-trough downturns as high as 50%.

    This may rule you out of some products which your friends or fellow forum members have. Which is fine. World would be boring if there was only one personality type or investment method and we all had to accept it.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 09-03-2017 at 4:42 PM.
    • davieg11
    • By davieg11 9th Mar 17, 5:18 PM
    • 207 Posts
    • 86 Thanks
    davieg11
    Generally if you invest as spare investible money becomes available from salary or other income etc, you will probably be fine over the long long long term, but the large inevitable downturns will happen whether you are mentally prepared or not, so if you find it difficult to mentally prepare for them, consider products which are unlikely to have peak-to-trough downturns as high as 50%.

    My Aviva pension has over 2000 different funds. How do you know which ones are unlikely to have 50% downturns?
    • Audaxer
    • By Audaxer 9th Mar 17, 5:53 PM
    • 162 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    Audaxer
    But I sure as hell wouldn't be 80% equities if I was 59 years old and that was my nest egg.
    Originally posted by jdw2000
    I'm in my late 50s, retired, and was thinking of transferring part of my savings to a VLS60, to hopefully get more growth from my savings and take income from that growth. However reading this thread, it looks like I will need to the growth years just to balance the losses.

    It was also suggested I should consider Investment Trusts which I now think may be a better way of getting a steady income. While I assume the equity element of Investment Trusts will also be volatile and suffer losses, am I right in thinking dividends are based on the number of shares you have rather than the value, so the dividends may not be badly affected in an equity crash?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 9th Mar 17, 7:03 PM
    • 87,732 Posts
    • 52,980 Thanks
    dunstonh
    My Aviva pension has over 2000 different funds. How do you know which ones are unlikely to have 50% downturns?
    Some could have 80% losses.

    All funds carry different risk levels. This includes funds in the same sector. A common mistake by new investors is to assume that all the funds in a particular sector are the same risk. There is no way for you to know unless you understand risk and reward and are able to make your own judgement call based on that research or use software.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • jdw2000
    • By jdw2000 9th Mar 17, 7:08 PM
    • 415 Posts
    • 108 Thanks
    jdw2000
    I agree of course that two things going up together doesn't imply correlation, nor causation. However, the fact that since 2009 equities have been on a strong bull run while many bond total return indices have been going up at well over their coupon rates, mean you have an environment where the movement of bond prices over multi year periods were positively correlated with, rather than negatively correlated with, the values of equities. Largely due to QE, with some currency effects on unhedged overseas bonds and so on.

    You mention a close-to-zero correlation score of two indices over a 1 year period ended three months ago at US election time. But 1 year is not much of a timeframe. 3 years would seem to be bare minimum.

    If you go onto Trustnet or similar data tool and bring up Vanguard's Global Bond Index fund (the backbone of the VLS bond component), added to your "basket" alongside the Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex UK index fund (the backbone of the VLS global equity component) you get a 3 year correlation score of 0.42.

    That is relatively weak correlation (example, Dev World ex UK compared to UK Allshare is stronger at 0.76)... But it is far from being a negative correlation and it is significantly above a zero correlation. Obviously it's not going to be +1.0, which isn't what I'm suggesting of course.

    So I'm comfortable saying generically that bonds in recent years have been correlated with - if not in lockstep with - equities. They have both shot up in the last seven years. Likewise they could both fall at the same time so if/when your overseas equities are falling 50% in sterling your bonds are not necessarily gong to be going the other way to offset them. They are of course very unlikely to fall as fast so will still act as a "brake" but you wouldn't bank on correlation being 0 or -0.5 or similar.

    People put mixed asset funds in pigeon holes. If we take VLS80 for example it sits in the "mixed asset, 40-85% equity" table.

    However that pile of investment funds occupying the "league table" has a vast range of risk profiles.

    - The VLS fund for example is in a pigeon hole where its apparent "competitors" may have a fixed or variable equity component going up to 85% at very top end. VLS80 is permanently no less than 80%. It has pretty much the highest equity component in its "mini-league". In an equity bull run it will do awesome. In an equity crash it will be terrible and other end of the league

    -VLS fund has 75% of its equities overseas and its UK equities are majority FTSE100 with high dollar revenues. That is a higher overseas equity and foreign currency component than most UK investors accept, so it is higher risk from that perspective and in sterling weakness it will do awesome but in sterling strengthening it would be poor and other end of the league

    - VLS non equity component is 100% bonds while other things in the mini league will use a mixture of bonds, real estate maybe a bit of gold or other commodities or multi-strategy solutions like currency plays or whatever. Some rivals are pure equity/bond, but many aren't. As we mentioned, bonds have been on a 30 year bull run until last year. So when you pull up a chart for five years, the VLS non-equity component did nicely thanks to the bull run, and maybe better than the other competitors in the mini league whose non equities bit on average had a broader mix of some bonds, some "other non-equities". As such, VLS did well but if bonds fall next to other non-equities it will push them towards other ends of the table.

    Basically, VLS as a product range was well positioned for the specific set of circumstances we experienced since VLS launch in July 2011. It tops the table in the widely-drawn mixed asset categories and people recommend it.

    There is a risk that some investors think that because it topped the table in the good years it will be better at surviving the bad years because the reason it topped the table was due to vanguard being competent, reliable and cheap. Ok cheap is a part of it. But instead the performance was really due to how the static asset mix was positioned. It pushed them right to one end of the table. Opposite economic circumstances could push them right to the other.

    I do understand your comment that a tracker might be mid table (2nd quartile you think, let's not rehash the argument) in good times and also mid table (2nd quartile you think) in bad times. That's how general index trackers behave. But a fund of tracker funds is not a single tracker.

    The point that you were pulling me up on was from an observation which stemmed from the fact that the VLS products are not really showing as mid table / lower second quartile at the moment, as you infer they will be and will stay. At the moment, they are top of the pops. And that premium position well above mid table comes from their pretty rigid asset allocation which was lucky. If instead it was UNlucky, they would not simply be sitting around in the second quartile. They would have larger losses than many.

    The solution of course is to get better "league tables" somehow, which try to risk grade these funds by volatility or something other than just an equity percentage. But unfortunately, casual retail investors will not be doing that as the popular common search tools don't really let you do that and their DIY platforms (which are keen to lump funds together for simple "usability") do not help.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Thanks for that. Much food for thought.

    Do you have any suggestions for other types of funds I can research which you feel are more stable (ie, are not prone to be toping or bottoming tables depending on what the market is doing)? You've mentioned L&G Multi Index 7 in the past, but that fund is not available with Halifax.

    I will be bringing money into my ISA in April. I have VLS60 in there already, which I am fine with. I was going to simply buy more VLS60. But I am thinking it wouldn't do any hard to get a similar fund, but perhaps one with property/emerging markets/comodities etc... things to diversify the equity and non-equity components away from VLS.
    • TheShape
    • By TheShape 9th Mar 17, 7:17 PM
    • 865 Posts
    • 612 Thanks
    TheShape
    So the solution could be, assuming you are at the top of a boom ready to invest, only ever invest 2/3 of what you want to invest, then when it crashes 50%, invest the other 1/3 (being half what you originally invested) at the bargain price of 50p in the pound. Then after waiting anything from two to ten years until price is back where it all started at a pound, tranche two will have doubled (100% gain) and tranche one will have recovered back to the beginning for 0% gain.

    So at that point, end of the economic cycle you would have your tranche one 2 which is back up to its starting 2, and tranche two 1 which turned into 2, so overall you have turned 3 into 4 for a 33% gain.

    Alternatively if you had just invested mid way through the cycle when things were not at peaks, you could have invested everything at a price of 75p (instead of 2/3 at 100 and 1/3 at 50p) and seen it go up to 100p, t growing your overall total by 33%.

    Of course, we don't really know where we are in the cycle so it isn't clear if we should go all in (hoping today is the "75p" point), or assume today is the "100p" point and leave a third uninvested for the "expected" 50% crash. It is just an unwinnable game of trying to time the market with cash on the sidelines.

    One thing is clear, if you gamble strongly on one approach being right, you will be disappointed of the other was better. This is where the oft used cliche "it's 'time in the market', not timing it" mantra comes from.

    Generally if you invest as spare investible money becomes available from salary or other income etc, you will probably be fine over the long long long term, but the large inevitable downturns will happen whether you are mentally prepared or not, so if you find it difficult to mentally prepare for them, consider products which are unlikely to have peak-to-trough downturns as high as 50%.

    This may rule you out of some products which your friends or fellow forum members have. Which is fine. World would be boring if there was only one personality type or investment method and we all had to accept it.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    My maths was wrong, very wrong!

    Personally I will be continuing to make regular monthly contributions to my S&S ISA from disposable income.

    If, however, a huge drop occured, is that not an opportunity to reallocate funds from elsewhere?

    If I have cash savings or p2p investments or the opportunity to make use of a money transfer might that be a good time to consider a lump-sum or an increased monthly contribution? Obviously your decision would be influenced by how attractive other options were.

    I am personally prepared for a downturn of 50% (or higher) as I'm investing long-term and feel that I have enough cash savings to call upon in all but the most catastrophic event.
    • roxy28
    • By roxy28 10th Mar 17, 5:34 PM
    • 597 Posts
    • 57 Thanks
    roxy28
    Does it really matter if your VLS60 and VLS20 (or whatever you decide to go for) aren't exactly 50/50 in the amount of money to have in each?

    If you put 1K in each one and a year later one is 1,200, and the other is 1,400 is it really important?

    I'd just leave it, personally.
    Originally posted by jdw2000
    Until i decide if i want to sell the VLS60 and replace with VLS40, will adding the VLS20 before april deadline incur 2 platform charges or fund charges on CSD.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 10th Mar 17, 5:38 PM
    • 9,126 Posts
    • 6,269 Thanks
    masonic
    Until i decide if i want to sell the VLS60 and replace with VLS40, will adding the VLS20 before april deadline incur 2 platform charges or fund charges on CSD.
    Originally posted by roxy28
    There are no charges for buying and selling funds at CSD, and platform charges depend only on the total value of your investments.
    • roxy28
    • By roxy28 10th Mar 17, 6:42 PM
    • 597 Posts
    • 57 Thanks
    roxy28
    There are no charges for buying and selling funds at CSD, and platform charges depend only on the total value of your investments.
    Originally posted by masonic
    Ok thanks.
    Just thought 2 VLS funds in my ISA= 2 charges.
    • Sean473
    • By Sean473 10th Mar 17, 8:18 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Sean473
    Generally if you invest as spare investible money becomes available from salary or other income etc, you will probably be fine over the long long long term, but the large inevitable downturns will happen whether you are mentally prepared or not, so if you find it difficult to mentally prepare for them, consider products which are unlikely to have peak-to-trough downturns as high as 50%.

    My Aviva pension has over 2000 different funds. How do you know which ones are unlikely to have 50% downturns?
    Originally posted by davieg11
    WOW! 2000 funds? That's nuts!

    Did Aviva set them up that way or you did?
    • Eco Miser
    • By Eco Miser 10th Mar 17, 8:26 PM
    • 2,800 Posts
    • 2,592 Thanks
    Eco Miser
    This is what people do with their pensions. If you are 20/30/40 years old, then you can take risks. But once you hit 50 and you only have 10/15 years to go until you need that money, then you want to start moving your investment into safer places.
    Originally posted by jdw2000
    Except that you may not need that money in 10/15 years - you are no longer required to buy an annuity with your pension pot, instead you can just take an income, either by switching to income focused funds or by selling a small part every year (or both).
    Eco Miser
    Saving money for well over half a century
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 10th Mar 17, 10:22 PM
    • 8,978 Posts
    • 5,714 Thanks
    bigadaj
    WOW! 2000 funds? That's nuts!

    Did Aviva set them up that way or you did?
    Originally posted by Sean473
    That just means that you have a choice from that many funds, it's not a huge amount and many platforms will be similar, there are frequently limits on either the number of funds or the minimum holdings, so it would be unusual for most people to have more than ten say.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 10th Mar 17, 11:16 PM
    • 87,732 Posts
    • 52,980 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Most of the wrap platforms are around the 30,000 mark when it comes to available investments to hold on platform.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • jamei305
    • By jamei305 11th Mar 17, 7:56 AM
    • 179 Posts
    • 217 Thanks
    jamei305
    My maths was wrong, very wrong!

    Personally I will be continuing to make regular monthly contributions to my S&S ISA from disposable income.

    If, however, a huge drop occured, is that not an opportunity to reallocate funds from elsewhere?
    Originally posted by TheShape
    How do you know what a huge drop is?

    Check out the dot com crash. The red cross is a 33% drop then it starts going up again - time to buy surely, because it has crashed back down to normal levels.

    Last edited by jamei305; 11-03-2017 at 3:28 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

86Posts Today

2,163Users online

Martin's Twitter