Vanguard Life Strategy

gadgetmind

The TER is a trifle higher than the sum of the components, but not much, and it's worth paying IMO for the automatic rebalancing.

IFAs used to charge 0.5% a year for rebalancing (an activity I do once per year and that takes an hour across 4-5 portfolios) so Lifestrategy is a bargain.

TCA

ruperts wrote: »

Does anyone know if the lifestrategy fund gets charged the fees of the component funds, thus meaning holders of LS are effectively paying twice?

The investor only pays once via the LS fund charges. When I looked a while back, the weighted average of the individual index funds was marginally less than the LS fund charges.

Linton

JohnRo wrote: »

Why must it be correct, can you actually demonstrate that or point to literature that does?

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I'd be genuinely interested in understanding how the regional aspect of companies and collectives is actually deciphered given that the geographic exchange they're listed on has little to do with their geographic & economic activities in some and perhaps many cases.

The Vanguard funds are based on the % allocation of a series of trackers that duplicate published indexes. So for example the the 100% VLS fund contain 30% Vanguard UK Equity index fund which tracks the FTSE All Share index. The UK % has nothing to do with the geographies where the economic activity takes place, its all about companies with a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

Other areas use MSCI indexes I dont know the basis of these but suspect that again it's the stock exchange where the company is listed that matters or possibly where the company is registered. If you are interested MSCI publish detailed documentation on how their indexes are constructed.

JohnRo

I'm not that concerned to go digging through MSCI or FTSE documents.

Was just trying to establish (superficially) that regional investment labelling doesn't necessarily relate to economic activity in that specific geographic region or for that matter exclude other regions of the planet if not allocated explicitly.

The only reason I posted was to challenge the notion that you can have too much of any one region if said regional investments are actually comprised of companies operating globally for the most part.

I suspect it's practically impossible to obtain a broad yet strictly geographic regional investment beyond picking individual stock that meets the strict criteria. Just begs the question what's the value of regional labelling actually worth?

Perhaps it's the sector allocation that is far more important to segregate and allocate for diversity than what seem to be fuzzy regional considerations?

takesyourchances

pip895 wrote: »

I have just started investing in the Marlborough fund - looks good - If you wanted a more purely small/microcap (to plug the gap in VLS) - you might also look at Unicorn SC.

Good to hear you have started with the Marlborough fund as well, it does looks to be good and I am happy to have selected this now.

The unicore sc fund looks interesting as well, had a look at it thanks.

I maybe have room for one more fund in my S&S ISA, although down the line might consider a few with my VLS 80% in my SIPP. At the moment I have the VLS 80% sole in it.

I have been thinking about Threadneedle US Smaller Companies as a last fund in the new tax year in my ISA, but not for certain. Some reckon the US is over priced, but if going for something US based would be drip feeding in over time so would not really concern me as I would be thinking years ahead.

Thanks.

Linton

JohnRo wrote: »

I suspect it's practically impossible to obtain a broad yet strictly geographic regional investment beyond picking individual stock that meets the strict criteria. Just begs the question what's the value of regional labelling actually worth?

Perhaps it's the sector allocation that is far more important to segregate and allocate for diversity than what seem to be fuzzy regional considerations?

The effect you talk about is mainly relevant megacaps but event for these there are some local factors. Compare the main indexes of the large industrial regions - you will find reasonable differences in performance.

I would say one should try to allocate for diversity, or rather desired portfolio structure, on all of geography, sector and company size.

JohnRo

Linton wrote: »

Compare the main indexes of the large industrial regions - you will find reasonable differences in performance.

Yep that's the fact which confounds the theory, it's obviously a much more complex analysis that's required to properly identify such things. As you say global mega caps are not all pervasive either and each regionally located index will have a different "character" from those located elsewhere.

It was just a thought, I may look into it in more detail at some point though I'm not sure how much, of anything, there would be to gain from such, cheers for humouring me.

colalba

black_taxi wrote: »

waiting to see HL new fee structure first

H-L have now announced new pricing.


£2 per month for index funds removed and replaced with 0.45% pa with no cap. For any large holding of index funds this is significant.


One poster reports £24 to £1750.

black_taxi_2

more expensive?

ColdIron

black_taxi wrote: »

more expensive?

Yes if the platform fee was £2 and you hold more that £5,333

If you hold a lot more than £5,333 a lot more expensive