Vanguard Life Strategy

ozzage

atush wrote: »

You may find it 'old fashionned' I find it based on law and fact.

Facts are, you didn't mention you'd been together for 8 years and you had children yet still did not marry.

Facts are, your daughter has an interest in your finances as you are bound to her by law. You aren't to your girlfriend, no matter how long you have been together.

Marriage is not romance or religion. It is a legal contract binding two parties, and their finances together. So you either are, or aren't.

So, like I said it is your money to do with what you like and she has no say. You have no say over what she does with hers. If you want to discuss it with her, fine. But she cannot tell you what to do with it. If you want to spend some of it on a wedding, go for it. If not, plow your own road.

If you died tomorrow, you child would inherit everything you own, and she wouldn't get a bean. Have a pension? She wouldn't get that either.

If you want your finances co-mingled, then either get married or go to the trouble of wills (need one anyway with a child) and nominating each other on pensions etc. But still not everything (such as probate) will be easy as you aren't married.

I'm not the OP so my situation is not his (8 years etc)

Your entire response is irrelevant to your statement, which was that she SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. It's a funny way to set up a relationship where you may only have a say in things where you have a "legal right" to do so...

rpc

ozzage wrote: »

Your entire response is irrelevant to your statement, which was that she SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. It's a funny way to set up a relationship where you may only have a say in things where you have a "legal right" to do so...

If OP was hit by a bus tomorrow, this gf would have no say (with or without capitals) in his money. If OP was taken into care or left in a coma, his gf would have no say. There are rules and these make special cases when two people are married or in a civil partnership. Long term partners have no more or less rights than best friends or the bloke you once played footy with at school.

You can make all the arrangements you want in terms of buying tesco value or tesco finest, or whether to bank with Santander or HBOS, but there are a number of scenarios where the only say you have is your legal right. No marriage means no legal right and no legal right means no say.

I totally agree it is silly to set up a meaningful relationship in a way that means partners do not have a say in each other's affairs. That's why people should get married.

innovate

ozzage wrote: »

It's a funny way to set up a relationship where you may only have a say in things where you have a "legal right" to do so...

Like it or not, if you aren't married or in a civil partnership, you have no legal rights to your partner's estate, and the other way round

grey_gym_sock

in this thread, you should first decide how much marriage is suitable in your circumstances, and given your risk-tolerance. e.g. you might pick 80% married, 20% cohabiting. then you should regularly rebalance to maintain this allocation.

black_taxi_2

50/50. Divorce

rpc

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

in this thread, you should first decide how much marriage is suitable in your circumstances, and given your risk-tolerance. e.g. you might pick 80% married, 20% cohabiting. then you should regularly rebalance to maintain this allocation.

And for high risk investors, you could put 10% in a bit on the side.

atush

But that 10% could cost you 60% (ie 50% plus costs) lol.

atush

ozzage wrote: »

I'm not the OP so my situation is not his (8 years etc)

Your entire response is irrelevant to your statement, which was that she SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. It's a funny way to set up a relationship where you may only have a say in things where you have a "legal right" to do so...

why are you commenting on what I had to say, if you think it was for the OP? I commented on your attack/slam. I didn't go back to page one to see who posted first.

The facts are, unless you are married your partner had no 'say' in what you do with your money. Plenty of married people have problems attempting to control a partner's bad financial ideas (ie overspending/debt/gambling etc.

Of course a wife (or just partner) could perhaps chuck you out if she doesn't like what you do with your money (or even the way you wash the dishes). Unless her name isn't on the house/mtg?

But she really doesn't have a 'say'.

richbeth

JohnnyJet wrote: »

I know this question is an impossible one to answer accurately, but does anyone have a rough idea how much the different VLS funds might be expected to increase over any average year? For example could the VLS 60% be expected to rise by say 7-10% before inflation is taken into account?

as another poster has said they are fairly new so there isn't a long price history. However in some of the marketing blurb they modeled back to the mid 70s. The 60% was slightly lower growth than the 80% but there wasn't much in it and IIRC they were between 10-11%pa.

Sorry I can't find a link to it.

R

Freecall

atush wrote: »

Of course a wife (or just partner) could perhaps chuck you out if she doesn't like what you do with your money (or even the way you wash the dishes).

38 pages of discussion about Vanguard Life Strategy has come to this.

Where did we all go wrong!!!