Multi-asset fund vs own allocation

BananaRepublic

dunstonh wrote: »

HL recommend them as the fund houses have paid to get their fund on that list. It isnt a real recommendation. It is marketing.

I am surprised that they are legally allowed to do that without full disclosure.

AnotherJoe

jm78 wrote: »

Actually the ongoing charge would be higher for one of the multi-asset funds than for my portfolio of trackers. This is another reason I'm tending to favour sticking with my own allocations.

Then you are picking the wrong multi asset funds

bowlhead99

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I am surprised that they are legally allowed to do that without full disclosure.

They don't recommend that you personally buy it because it's going to be perfect for your specific needs. They say everywhere that they are an execution only shop without advice, unless you're actually buying personal advice from them.

They merely say, e.g., here is some information on this fund, we believe this warrants inclusion on the list of funds we prefer in this sector on the basis that it has feature abc or the manager is experienced with def or it has potential to do x when y for investors who do not mind z.

Maybe they really prefer it because they got a nice free lunch out of it because the manager said he would help them write an article about him and then they can look informed and eloquent when providing information on the fund to their customers, and said he'd give their customers a semi exclusive discount which would help the HL platform fee, though still explicitly charged, feel more affordable to the Investors.

There is nothing illegal about that. An alternative would be for HL to not provide any kind of write up for any investments beyond the funds own publicists' straplines, and leave customers to navigate the 2000 choices entirely on their own. That wouldn't be as popular with inexperienced customers despite it being more of a level playing field.

Customers could then go to some other source to learn about the different funds, such as Trustnet, which is also not independent ; it is a media company and not critical of funds that want to supply it with advertising or filler for its huge number of articles.

If customers want to buy independent unbiased research and advice on shares or funds, they will find it's not cheap, once the subsidy from fund houses is no longer in play.

TheTracker

The "monevator model portfolios" are a set of lazy portfolios that you can find in the press/books/media, with US bias either removed (flattened) or converted to UK bias. I wouldn't call them "monevator model portfolios", but more "widely discussed passive model portfolios" that monevator have collected in one place. Constructed by those flash in the pan authors (sarcasm) like Markowitz, Bernstein, and David Swensen. Indeed they are just places to start, idea generators. Anyone who thinks you should spend 50 years invested in Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio is the sort of person who thinks the Bible is non fiction.

coyrls

jm78 wrote: »

The message I got from reading through Monevator was that passive investing doesn't require much rebalancing (and that there is even an argument never to do it).

You couldn't have read it very closely because there are many postings on the importance of rebalancing, e.g. http://monevator.com/rebalancing-asset-allocations/. There are links from this posting to further ones:

• How to rebalance your portfolio
• When should you rebalance your portfolio?
• Factors that may influence how and when you rebalance
• Getting older? Admit it when you rebalance your portfolio
• Rebalance your portfolio for your benefit, not the tax man’s
• The simplest way to rebalance your portfolio
• Use threshold rebalancing to lower your portfolio’s risk
• Rebalance with new contributions to save on grief and cost

planteria

my initial thought, jm78, is that you have made the effort to understand what you are doing, and that could be very valuable. you obviously want your money to be allocated wisely - but also, if you do it yourself and are successful, then you will have some satisfaction as a result.

dunstonh wrote: »

HL recommend them as the fund houses have paid to get their fund on that list. It isnt a real recommendation. It is marketing..

it's not as simple as that. the HL team do believe that the funds they recommend represent good investments, in the right circumstances.

TheTracker

Yes the HL situation is a bit like the services MSE link to. Here are good deals, but we aren't saying there aren't better deals, and in small print (if any) we tell you we get kickbacks for either showing this information or you buying the service we show. "Advertorials".

dunstonh

it's not as simple as that. the HL team do believe that the funds they recommend represent good investments, in the right circumstances.

Yet the fund will only appear in the list if HL get better terms. So, if you have fund A that is better than fund B but fund A wont give better terms and fund B will, then fund B is the one that appears in the list.

StellaN

Does anybody know if there are any other Multi-Asset funds (either passive or active) instead of the VLS, L&G & Blackrock Consensus versions?

I only ask because although there is a long list of multi asset funds on Trustnet etc they all seem to have around 25% UK exposure. I am looking for a multi asset fund that has nearer 7% UK exposure similar in proportion to an all world tracker?

dunstonh

Does anybody know if there are any other Multi-Asset funds (either passive or active) instead of the VLS, L&G & Blackrock Consensus versions?

Hundreds of them.

I only ask because although there is a long list of multi asset funds on Trustnet etc they all seem to have around 25% UK exposure. I am looking for a multi asset fund that has nearer 7% UK exposure similar in proportion to an all world tracker?

That is less likely as that is a very low UK exposure and would push the risk of the portfolio up and multi-asset funds tend to focus on a volatility risk range.