Vanguard Life Strategy

Temrael

I guess the key thing to get one's head round is that it's a marathon not a sprint, there will be rocky patches. You need to be ok with those, and you need to understand that even with a well rounded portfolio it will go backwards at times. However, over the long term, your holdings should slowly rise.

savingsaving2015

Thank you for all the replies and information.

So after reading and reading more, i think i am going to go with charles stanley direct with the VLS 60 Acc as my primary and the CF Woodford Equity fund as my bolt on fund. However i see that this fund has an A,C,X or Z. Anyone else here who has gone with the CF Woodford Equity fund any tips on either?

Thank you

hails14

Hi all,

I'm a novice at this but have been reading up on it. I am interested in the vanguard 60% going to start investing 200 per month.I am 25. I see this as a long term investment. I was wonder what's the best low cost way of having it. Would it be through their website or with a S&S ISA?

My mum also has a lump sum of a few thousand and would like to invest each month. She also wants to invest in vanguard.

Thanks

Temrael

If you are investing little and often with a small holding initially then one of the annual fee platforms will probably work out cheaper for now. Check out the Monevator site for his platform costs comparison.

hails14

Thanks for the advice. Charles Stanley seems to be the cheapest option.

Would it be better to chose a few from the vanguard and do it yourself or is the vanguard the best option?

Temrael

It's down to you really, for many people just starting out (like me) LifeStrategy provides a simple way to achieve a "boil in the bag" portfolio that is well diversified across different regions, different company sizes, different categories etc. It also allows you to dilute the risk a little with bonds if you go with the 80, 60 etc.

For many novice investors it's enough (and certainly better than just randomly selecting a couple of stocks or funds), but when you know more and you start to have clearer ideas about exactly how much you want to be exposed to individual markets (and where these are different to how LS is setup) then you'd need to go your own way and create a bespoke portfolio of your choosing.

badger09

hails14 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. Charles Stanley seems to be the cheapest option.

Would it be better to chose a few from the vanguard and do it yourself or is the vanguard the best option?

The advantage of the Vantage Lifestrategy funds, over picking individual Vanguard funds, is that it automatically rebalances for you, keeping to what Vanguard believes is the 'right mix' of assets. Without any experience of investing, do you think you know better? Not meant to sound harsh or to put you off learning

The LS 60% has a very high bond component for a 25 year old with perhaps a 50+ year investing horizon.

Just my opinion

ozzage

Temrael wrote: »

For many novice investors it's enough (and certainly better than just randomly selecting a couple of stocks or funds), but when you know more and you start to have clearer ideas about exactly how much you want to be exposed to individual markets (and where these are different to how LS is setup) then you'd need to go your own way and create a bespoke portfolio of your choosing.

While you MAY want to create a bespoke portfolio, realistically it's just as likely you'll end with worse returns than VLS as better.

The fact is that the VLS allocation is probably not any worse than what you'll come up with yourself, given that we cannot know the future and what sectors will over and under-perform.

I really wouldn't worry too much about fine-tuning the allocation or adding on extra "satellite" funds unless you want to do it as a hobby and are happy that you may well end up LOSING money instead of just keeping things simple (and cheap) in the VLS or a similar fund.

People over-complicate their asset allocations WAY too much. A few % here or there is really irrelevant, except in hindsight. There is no way of knowing right now if you should have 7% or 9% or 11% in emerging markets to maximise your returns over the next 15 years.

You're far better off ensuring that you have roughly the right amount in stocks vs bonds and then sticking your hands in your pockets so you don't tinker too much.

Temrael

Absolutely agree, I thought it was interesting to compare LS 80 vs Monevator's performance for Q1, he'd have been better sticking with LS 80 (close to his overall equity/bond split). Of course in a different quarter things could be different, maybe he'd be more protected in bad times, you only know that looking back as you say.

black_taxi_2

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/business/mutfund/the-value-of-a-classic-in-a-turbocharged-world.html?ref=mutfund&_r=0




60/40