Vanguard Life Strategy

ColdIron

Someone is voting in the poll. There seems to be little rhyme or reason, since midday yesterday all options have increased

• 250 > 260
• 91 > 93
• 159 > 163
• 30 > 31

Audaxer

ColdIron wrote: »

Someone is voting in the poll. There seems to be little rhyme or reason, since midday yesterday all options have increased

• 250 > 260
• 91 > 93
• 159 > 163
• 30 > 31

I suppose someone must have found this thread yesterday and voted once which brought it back into view at the top of the Forum. Since then as others have seen the thread and poll for the first time, they will also have voted which has kept it near the top of the Forum.

ColdIron

Perhaps you are right to be charitable and I'm simply becoming a cynical old curmudgeon

Zola.

Give me a v.... V!

Audaxer

ColdIron wrote: »

Perhaps you are right to be charitable and I'm simply becoming a cynical old curmudgeon

I'm only assuming that other people did what I did - as it was the first time I had seen the thread and the poll was there so I cast my vote.

Dazed_and_confused

Me as well

scoot65

Audaxer wrote: »

I'm only assuming that other people did what I did - as it was the first time I had seen the thread and the poll was there so I cast my vote.

Whoops! me too!

aroominyork

I’ll toss someone else into the discussion about VLS. My son has £75k gifted as a deposit for his first property which he might buy in three, five, seven (plus) years, so he is putting a third into premium bonds, a third into a cash ISA and a third into an S&S ISA (moving £4k pa into a LISA). I suggested VLS40 but then did a comparison based on putting 40% into VLS100 and 60% into Morgan Stanley Sterling Corporate Bond, a cautious strategic fund. Looking at the last five years VLS40 returned 6.45%, 7,97%, 1.39%, 17.90%, 5.80%, or 45.36% compounded. The hybrid VLS100 (40%) and Morgan Stanley (60%) returned 12.10%, 8.08%, 2.41%, 18.34%, 8.32%, or 59.05% compounded.

Comparing VLS60 to VLS100 (60%) and Morgan Stanley (40%) the compounded returns are 60.16% and 70.12% respectively; VLS80 returned 76.07% and the hybrid 81.54%. I think the hybrid offers, especially for the VLS40 option, worthwhile potential extra returns for what may be (though it is difficult to quantify it) a little extra risk.

Malthusian

You would expect VLS100 / Morgan Stanley to produce different returns than VLS60 because VLS60's bond allocation is invested globally while Morgan Stanley is a sterling-only corporate bond fund. So you've come to the conclusion that UK corporate bonds will continue to outperform global bonds over the next 3-7 years? Why corporate bonds but not equities? Genuine question.

aroominyork

Malthusian wrote: »

You would expect VLS100 / Morgan Stanley to produce different returns than VLS60 because VLS60's bond allocation is invested globally while Morgan Stanley is a sterling-only corporate bond fund.

Morgan Stanley is invested 54.21% in international bonds and 44.98% in UK corporate bonds, and since VLS is global but overweight in the UK I don't think the difference in geographical focus is as great as you suggest.

PS Looking at the numbers more closely, VLS40 (ie 60% fixed interest) includes 20.2% UK bonds and gilts, while in the hybrid model Morgan Stanley has 44.98% x 0.6 = 27% UK fixed interest, albeit in a different mix of instruments.