Is a Vanguard Lifestrategy investment all you need

Ray_Singh-Blue

Re the above:
"The market" is where people who wish to buy, meet people who wish to sell. So it is always the right time to buy. And always the right time to sell. The only things which change are reasons, and price. It is sometimes possible to predict your reasons for entering or exiting the market but it is much more difficult to predict the price.

grey_gym_sock

bowlhead99 wrote: »

VLS: decent, not the only game in town.

Monevator: decent, not the only game in town.

Bowlhead99 comments: same.

this is why all the cool kids are now diversifying their portfolios across VLS, monevator articles, and bowlhead comments, via some fancy new ETF.

though personally, i'm put off by the need to use synthetic replication to get exposure to monevator and bowlhead.

grey_gym_sock

BananaRepublic wrote: »

The idea is that it could skew the market dynamics. Let's say almost all investors are passive. Then when a share rises, people automatically buy into that share, giving it additional upward momentum. And of course the converse could happen. So the result is an exaggeration of market movements. However, what I have written is very simplistic, and other factors might come into play, but I would hope that research has been done to find out what the actual effects of significant levels of passive investment are.

as stated, that's just wrong. passive investors don't make a share which is rising (relative to other shares) rise faster. they don't have any effect on the relative prices of shares within an index, because they buy the same proportion of everything.

suppose passive funds hold 10% of a given market. that implies they hold 10% of the available shares in every company. if passive investors now throw some more money at the market, they may end up holding 11% of every share. this may force up prices overall, but it won't affect relative prices of the different shares that make up the market.

relative prices are determined by the action of active investors. some investors may indeed pile into a rapidly rising share, thus making its price rise even faster, to unsustainable levels. they are active investors!

OTOH, general equity madness, in which investors buy at any price, thus making the whole market overvalued, is something that both passive and active investors can contribute to.

Linton wrote: »

Of course every investor wont be passive because retail investors only form a small part of the total market.

institutional investors hold a bigger proportion of their investments in passive vehicles than retail investors do, AIUI. clearly, active investing is not going to die out in either institutional or retail, however. just to shrink.

it ought to shrink, because active management charges are 1 of the means by which the financial sector is sucking the life out of the real (non-financial) part of the economy.

JohnLondon

Do Hargreaves Lansdown not offer the L & G Multi Index funds? I've got an account with them but cannot see that these funds are available on their platform

BananaRepublic

badger09 wrote: »

This thread illustrates bowlead99's point quite well:cool:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5595112

It was more a thesis than a point.

BananaRepublic

jdw2000 wrote: »

My motto is: "time the market, beat the market. And always chase your losses".

Words are cheap. What is your past record of timing the market?

BananaRepublic

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

as stated, that's just wrong. passive investors don't make a share which is rising (relative to other shares) rise faster. they don't have any effect on the relative prices of shares within an index, because they buy the same proportion of everything.

suppose passive funds hold 10% of a given market. that implies they hold 10% of the available shares in every company. if passive investors now throw some more money at the market, they may end up holding 11% of every share. this may force up prices overall, but it won't affect relative prices of the different shares that make up the market.

relative prices are determined by the action of active investors. some investors may indeed pile into a rapidly rising share, thus making its price rise even faster, to unsustainable levels. they are active investors!

OTOH, general equity madness, in which investors buy at any price, thus making the whole market overvalued, is something that both passive and active investors can contribute to.



institutional investors hold a bigger proportion of their investments in passive vehicles than retail investors do, AIUI. clearly, active investing is not going to die out in either institutional or retail, however. just to shrink.

it ought to shrink, because active management charges are 1 of the means by which the financial sector is sucking the life out of the real (non-financial) part of the economy.

When you say "as stated, that's just wrong", anyone can make a statement. Do you have proof other than handwaving? I am not making any claims, as I have no proof either way.

Incidentally, there has been an impact on the market of automated trading. I'm too busy to search for details, and examples, but I'm sure it's easy to find.

BananaRepublic

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

this is why all the cool kids are now diversifying their portfolios across VLS, monevator articles, and bowlhead comments, via some fancy new ETF.

though personally, i'm put off by the need to use synthetic replication to get exposure to monevator and bowlhead.

I'm put off by the length of Bowlhead's posts, reading them would mean taking time off work, and going to bed later. For that reason I vote for the other two. What was the question again?

AnotherJoe

BananaRepublic wrote: »

When you say "as stated, that's just wrong", anyone can make a statement. Do you have proof other than handwaving? I am not making any claims, as I have no proof either way.

Incidentally, there has been an impact on the market of automated trading. I'm too busy to search for details, and examples, but I'm sure it's easy to find.

He didnt just "make a statement", he then used logic to show why it was correct.
Disagree with the logic if you will, using other info or logic. It seemed reasonable to me.

The impact on the market of automated trading is, AFAICR, to do with volatility and trades arbitraging minute differences in prices over literally millisecond timescales. Nothing to do with index funds, they arent doing that sort of trading.

Dird

In terms of the 100% fund the Fidelity Index World Fund has outperformed it every year since it started (+3% annual average over the last 3 years) but yeah, you can pretty much pick one and put everything in