Vanguard Life Strategy

Marazan

GreenTricky wrote: »

According to this I should be off to Charles Stanley, not sure how up to date is it though and doesn't include HL as they refuse to provide data

http://www.comparefundplatforms.com/home

CSD are cheap for low value holdings of funds give that they have no dealing costs and their annual charge is only 0.25% but their annual charge is not capped so as your fund size increases they will eventually become uncompetitive. Their ETF/Shares annual fee is capped but then there are dealing fees for buying and selling.

Freefall123

Any vanguard ETF's equivalent to the VLS 80 fund, then I could buy those and have the fees capped at £45 with HL ?

MadMat

handy link - suggests Charles Stanley to me too!

Archi_Bald

Marazan wrote: »

....but their annual charge is not capped so as your fund size increases they will eventually become uncompetitive.

Where do you get a cap on Vanguard funds (under the post-RDR scheme)?

Are we sure Charles Stanley charges are post-RDR?

block10

Through the link, I'm seeing a 0.58% Annual cost for Charles Stanley. It includes 0.25% Platform charge + 0.33 TER.

Doesn't seem to be much of a saving comparing the 0.58% figure with HL 0.45%? Obviously i'm missing something?

Archi_Bald

block10 wrote: »

Through the link, I'm seeing a 0.58% Annual cost for Charles Stanley. It includes 0.25% Platform charge + 0.33 TER.

Doesn't seem to be much of a saving comparing the 0.58% figure with HL 0.45%? Obviously i'm missing something?

HL is 0.45% platform plus 0.3%ish for the AMC, i.e. 0.75% at least. That's in an ISA - - I think SIPP figures will be different yet again, and HL might well still be cheaper overall for SIPPs. I haven't done the SIPP numbers yet though.

JohnRo

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Where do you get a cap on Vanguard funds (under the post-RDR scheme)?

Are we sure Charles Stanley charges are post-RDR?

Fair question, they were the first retail platform AFAIK to move to exclusively clean class fund offerings. I suspect they may possibly move further though since it's about a year since they first started their clean priced promotion.

The whole month of January they're offering a lower £7.50 dealing charge which may be an internal test to look at the potential outcomes of reducing dealing fees permanently. That won't help funds at this stage but indicates they're perhaps still looking at various pricing options.

Calfuray

Hello!

I'm looking to tentatively dab my toes in the murky waters of investing, having read up on it. Like the bulk on this thread, I am looking at passive investment and the Vanguard LifeStrategy, at least to start with. Once I've had a bit of experience, I'd like to look at holding more funds and diversifying etc.

Just looking for a sanity check to make sure my idea makes sense:

I'm 23, so figure I should be looking at the 80% or 60% funds. I'm a little cautious and risk-averse, so thinking 60? But then I don't know if it'd be better to go for 80 due to age and fact that these are diverse and so risk is less...?
Right now I'm thinking of a S&S ISA, with regular deposits of £50 a month (to be upped when income increases).

Would I be right in thinking Charles Stanley Direct is a good place to do this? It looks like I have a platform fee of 0.25% and a TER of 0.32% - 0.57% in total (keeping in mind as investment increases that switching to a flat fee may be better).

Does this sound right/good, or is there another platform/plan you would suggest?

Any help much appreciated!

black_taxi_2

age 23

time is your friend

general thinking is 110 or 100 - your age in equity

80/20


http://monevator.com/vanguard-lifestrategy/

mark55man

80 is also more international

However, that decision should be measured against how soon you might need the money - the more exposed to equity the higher the likely volatility. if this is saving for a house in 5 years you might want to be more cautious than if this was your early retirement pot in which case I might even go for a worldwide 100% equity fund.

you need to be clear about this - its why an emergency cash like fund is recommended so that you don't need to dip into your investments when you hit problem (ie redundancy) which is likely to be when asset values are depressed