Vanguard Life Strategy

Alexland

Well that accounts for the difference then. But it doesn't mean that having the more heavy UK fixed income bias is better going forward.

This fourm is nuts with some people complaining VLS has any UK bias, some including myself thinking there is about the right amount of bias and others saying there should be a heavier UK bias.

Poor old Vanguard they are just trying their best but they clearly won't please.

bowlhead99

Alexland wrote: »

This fourm is nuts with some people complaining VLS has any UK bias, some including myself thinking there is about the right amount of bias and others saying there should be a heavier UK bias.

Yeah, madness - it's almost like, a discussion forum populated with people with disparate backgrounds, opinions, investing styles and levels of knowledge, is collectively producing more than one opinion. Who could have guessed!

aroominyork

Alexland wrote: »

Well that accounts for the difference then

I don't think so. The main difference is that Morgan Stanley is actively managed, VLS is passive. That probably has more bearing on the hybrid's 14% premium over five years than a pretty small difference in fixed interest geography, though those with more FI knowledge may set me right.

chockydavid1983

Alexland wrote: »

This fourm is nuts with some people complaining VLS has any UK bias, some including myself thinking there is about the right amount of bias and others saying there should be a heavier UK bias.

This is exactly what I've been contemplating lately. Still not sure what my opinion is as yet!

aroominyork

chockydavid1983 wrote: »

This is exactly what I've been contemplating lately. Still not sure what my opinion is as yet!

You're wrong David, you're wrong.

A_T

Alexland wrote: »

Well that accounts for the difference then. But it doesn't mean that having the more heavy UK fixed income bias is better going forward.

This fourm is nuts with some people complaining VLS has any UK bias, some including myself thinking there is about the right amount of bias and others saying there should be a heavier UK bias.

Poor old Vanguard they are just trying their best but they clearly won't please.

Those seeking multi-asset funds that more accurately reflect global market capitalisation could investigate the HSBC Global Strategy series. These do not have a home bias in equities. They also have a stake in REITs which VLS doesn't.

renova

Does anyone have any advice how best to lower equities risk with LS funds as you age?

Right now at 30 i'm in LS 80% and have been for ~3 years - I'm ideally looking at this as untouched 30 years savings / retirement fund, I've seen some people say to be in 60% at age 30 - would that be sensible?

I know there's no right answer, just looking to find out at what those that understand it far more that me do and when/if to go to 60% and 20%.

Thanks

JohnRo

If you don't need to spend / draw income from the investment for another 27 or 30 years then I really don't see what advantage there is to be gained by going for increased bond risk and lower equity risk at this stage, unless you're simply attempting to time the markets.

With a global fund like VLS, that's unlikely to work as intended. I'd just sit back and let it do it's thing for now, fwiw.

A_T

Yeah if your investing with a horizon of 25+ years 100% equities has historically produced best returns.

However VLS100 does not truly reflect global capitalisation whereas something like HSBC FTSE All-World Index Fund or Fidelity Index World does and they historically produce higher returns.

renova

Thanks that does make sense, but with 100% and if you know you need the money at the +30 year point for certain (but not before), are you not hugely exposed after 25 years or so if things take a down turn? Does it not make sense to dial down the risk over time at all? Or should you just remain exposed to maximum potential equity gain for the duration?