Investing in Funds

dunstonh

I'm thinking of placing it in either the Royal London Sustainable World Trust C Acc or else the old favourite of LifeStrategy 80.

Two very different funds with very different objectives. Someone considering the former would not consider the latter or vice versa. So, why are you?

funkey_monkey

Hi,

I was considering them because Trustnet has lumped both of them into the same sector: IA Mixed Investment 40% - 85% Shares
Link: Trustnet Sector Overview

The reason I downselected to these two is that the Royal London is best performer over the long term in this sector and LS80 is the most widely known in the sector.

However, this is why I'm here looking for advice.

dunstonh

I was considering them because Trustnet has lumped both of them into the same sector: IA Mixed Investment 40% - 85% Shares
Link: Trustnet Sector Overview

Trustnet didnt put them in there. The fund houses agreed objectives that made them compatible with that sector.

The reason I downselected to these two is that the Royal London is best performer over the long term in this sector and LS80 is the most widely known in the sector.

That sector is a massive one that on a typical risk scale of 1-10 can see funds risk rated between 3 and 9.

You cannot measure the best performer in sector without knowing the risk profile of the fund. In fact, the best performer relative to risk profile may be one of the bottom performers in that sector.

The RL fund focuses on a theme whereas VLS is a general multi-asset fund. Both would be expected to be at the upper end of the performance fund in the sector as both hold the most equity. However, that isnt how you pick a fund. Indeed, if you are looking at that much equity, you may be better off just going 100% equity and including those in your research.

funkey_monkey

Okay - yes I see your point now.

Opting for LS100 might be too simplistic?

Audaxer

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Okay - yes I see your point now.

Opting for LS100 might be too simplistic?

You could consider the Baillie Gifford Managed B Acc fund. It is a multi asset fund with 76% equities, has been going for 30 years, and looks to have a very good performance history.

funkey_monkey

Thanks - seems like a lot of funds out there to down-select from.

At 40 years old, I was thinking that the LS100 fund would be taking on too much risk.
Maybe the LS 60 (or LS80) would be more sensible options.

The Baillie Gifford fund looks promising, although there is a 5% initial charge which HL cover so it is 0% net. However the TER is 1.52% which is on the high side.

I suppose I could split the funds between LS80 and some other options? Urgh - I remember now why I handed this over to someone else!

Audaxer

funkey_monkey wrote: »

The Baillie Gifford fund looks promising, although there is a 5% initial charge which HL cover so it is 0% net. However the TER is 1.52% which is on the high side.

You must be looking at a different version of the fund as the Ongoing Charge is only 0.42% with no initial charge - see link below:
https://www.youinvest.co.uk/market-research/FUND:0601016
Edit: maybe you were looking at the yield as that is 1.52%.

funkey_monkey

I was looking on the HL site, but missed the 1.10% saving from HL which made it equal to 0.42%.

Apologies.

Audaxer

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I was looking on the HL site, but missed the 1.10% saving from HL which made it equal to 0.42%.

Apologies.

No problem. A bit confusing as I see that you were looking at this fund:
http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/b/baillie-gifford-managed-income-inclusive
I was looking at this one:
http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/b/baillie-gifford-managed-class-b-accumulation
They appear to be different versions of the same fund, although the returns are slightly different.

Looks like a good fund to me anyway as one I was considering.

funkey_monkey

I meant to look at the one you linked as it is the Accumulation fund!