Multi-asset fund vs own allocation

StellaN

dunstonh wrote: »

Hundreds of them.
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.

So is UK equity exposure much lower risk than the US, Europe, Europe ex EU and other developed world equities?

dunstonh

StellaN wrote: »

So is UK equity exposure much lower risk than the US, Europe, Europe ex EU and other developed world equities?

You would expect the UK exposure to be higher in most risk profiles given the increased risk that occurs with currency fluctuations with global assets.

grey_gym_sock

StellaN wrote: »

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?

the HSBC global strategy portfolio funds (with 3 risk levels: cautious, balanced, dynamic) were mentioned on another thread, and they seem to have a low UK exposure.

i've only glanced at them, but 1 point is that they are holding a fair bit of non-sterling bonds (dollars, euros, etc), and they may not be hedging the currency to sterling. many people would argue that you should hedge any non-sterling bonds you hold back to sterling (as a UK-based investor), because bonds are supposed to be the stable part of your portfolio (and exchange rates can be volatile).

i wonder if these funds are aimed more at internationally mobile investors, rather than UK-based.

StellaN

Thank you for that greygymsock.

Has anybody else had any experience with the HSBC Global Strategy Portfolio's? I suppose there is always going to be currency fluctuations however if you hold enough cash in reserve this shouldn''t be too much of a problem.

Hargreaves_Lansdown_representative

"HL recommend them as the fund houses have paid to get their fund on that list. "


This statement is simply not true.

StellaN

Very interesting that HL has asked their representative to post on the forum to totally deny that they receive payment from funds in this way?

BananaRepublic

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

There's the rub, it is all a little bit sleazy albeit quite legal. Of course the world is full of this sort of thing such as estate agents getting kick backs for recommending a given mortgage provider.

BananaRepublic

StellaN wrote: »

Very interesting that HL has asked their representative to post on the forum to totally denied that they receive payment from funds in this way?

They deny a direct payment. They do not deny recommending funds based on receiving preferential terms.

jm78

Thanks for the feedback on my original post, everyone.

So the consensus is that I would be better off going with a multi-asset fund than persisting with my own portfolio along the lines of the Monevator model portfolios. I must say I'm a bit disappointed as I have enjoyed learning about all this and watching the success of my funds (albeit, I know, over a very short period of time), but I must be a realist given that there is money at stake!

Like StellaN, I shy away from the Vanguard funds given their considerable exposure to the UK. I can't help but see turbulent times ahead for the UK, at least in the short term, with Article 50 probably (so long as the anti-democracy faction don't get their way) going to be triggered at some point this year.

grey gym sock's point about the potential lack of currency hedging in the HSBC funds is food for thought though –!anyone know of any low-cost multi-asset funds without much UK exposure that do hedge against currency risk?

TheTracker

I suspect with HL it's nothing as blunt as paid for advertising. In providing preferential rates the fund houses receive more custom, and the platform receives more custom. You win I win, or at least they both win. Not sure about us. For within that symbiotic relationship is the perception of a risk of content and marketing, and some people may blindly accept such lists as being objectively constructed. How much do HL dispel this myth, explaining that past performance matters not, that star performers are rare as hens teeth, that they have discount relationships with fund houses to promote one another? Hmm, yeah.

To the OP, you should post on monevator itself. Or boglehwads. You might enrich the views expressed.