Is a Vanguard Lifestrategy investment all you need

grey_gym_sock

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.

perhaps that was clumsily expressed. it was supposed to mean: "in the form in which you have stated it, the thesis that passive investment will skew market dynamics is wrong". and i went to to explain why.

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.

automated trading is a kind of active trading, as anotherjoe said.

oldfella

badger09 wrote: »

I don't suppose you could post a link to the L&G Multi Index Funds on Halifax/IWeb?

I can't find it on IWeb and have been told they don't offer it - as per my earlier post.

sorry, thought we were talking about Vanguard

bowlhead99

badger09 wrote: »

I can't find them on HL.

FWIW they're not available on IWeb either. When I asked why, I was told they don't comply with UCITS regulations.

I see IWeb/Halifax doesn't have the Blackrock Consensus range either (another cheap way of throwing money at multiple global asset classes at low AMC) which are also non-UCITS retail schemes (NURS).

At a glance they don't seem to have any direct property PAIFs either. I guess you don't get the most advanced platform services and biggest range of funds when using a budget provider.

HL do carry the Blackrock ones together with a whole load of other non-UCITS funds, PAIFs etc. And as an aside, bizarrely they have a discounted class on Blackrock Consensus (bringing it down to 0.1% OCF) but don't actually include it in their Wealth150 marketing list. Nearly everything else they have with a discount to the standard clean class, makes the W150 list. Perhaps including a really cheap all-in-one fund on that list would divert too much money away from the other managers to whom they've promised the limelight in exchange for discounts. Not that I'm a cynic on HL's marketing techniques

BananaRepublic

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

perhaps that was clumsily expressed. it was supposed to mean: "in the form in which you have stated it, the thesis that passive investment will skew market dynamics is wrong". and i went to to explain why.

I hold neither view, I simply gave a simplistic presentation of one scenario just as you did. The world is more complex, which is why I asked for some evidence. I could put forwward logical argument explaining why passive funds reduce market volatility, or increase market volatility. One could imagine a scenario where some active traders know how the big funds will behave, so they include that in their investment strategy.

The Long Term Capital Management fiasco suggests understanding of the markets is not perfect (understatement alert).

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

automated trading is a kind of active trading, as anotherjoe said.

It can be either. Not sure what your point is. I was giving an example of a form of trading skewing the market.

badger09

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I see IWeb/Halifax doesn't have the Blackrock Consensus range either (another cheap way of throwing money at multiple global asset classes at low AMC) which are also non-UCITS retail schemes (NURS).

At a glance they don't seem to have any direct property PAIFs either. I guess you don't get the most advanced platform services and biggest range of funds when using a budget provider.

I do accept that, to a certain extent, 'you get what you pay for' from a budget platform. I transferred my ISA from HL to IWeb back in February 2014 when HL introduced their new pricing structure. At that time the ISA was tiny, but I knew it would grow substantially from Cash ISA tranfers in, so I was looking to keep future costs to a minimum.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

HL do carry the Blackrock ones together with a whole load of other non-UCITS funds, PAIFs etc. And as an aside, bizarrely they have a discounted class on Blackrock Consensus (bringing it down to 0.1% OCF) but don't actually include it in their Wealth150 marketing list. Nearly everything else they have with a discount to the standard clean class, makes the W150 list. Perhaps including a really cheap all-in-one fund on that list would divert too much money away from the other managers to whom they've promised the limelight in exchange for discounts. Not that I'm a cynic on HL's marketing techniques

I know HL offer the Blackrock Consensus range but, regardless of whether (or maybe because:p) a fund appears in their Wealth 150 list, I'm not prepared to pay HL's additional .45% platform fee.

Looks like I might have to find another platform for next year's ISA and the rest of my cash ISA if I want to diversify from my Vanguard holdings:cool:

bowlhead99

badger09 wrote: »

I do accept that, to a certain extent, 'you get what you pay for' from a budget platform.

The other way you could put it, is that you only have to pay what you want to pay for.

So if you don't want or need a load of research editorial and glossy website and smartphone app and a larger customer service team and a few more fund options from a bigger DIY fund business - then there is absolutely no need to pay almost half a percent a year of a large pile of capital, for those services at HL.

Therefore if you want to get what IWeb has got, for the price they want to charge, it can be a very smart move to go there (or somewhere else with cheap service/transaction fees)and get exactly what you want to pay for.

I know HL offer the Blackrock Consensus range but, regardless of whether (or maybe because:p) a fund appears in their Wealth 150 list, I'm not prepared to pay HL's additional .45% platform fee.

My mum and dad have it as some "filler" in their respective ISA portfolios, but I only suggested they use it because it's cheap when you're already paying the 0.45% anyway - if they weren't already there, I wouldn't suggest they go there and pay the huge platform fee just for the privilege of being able to buy that fund cheap

I'll probably get them to move their ISAs away from HL this summer (though might keep a small cheap SIPP there), so part of the reason I've been looking at what's available on other platforms is with that in mind.

Looks like I might have to find another platform for next year's ISA and the rest of my cash ISA if I want to diversify from my Vanguard holdings:cool:

The standard advice you've probably heard a hundred times here is decide what you want first, and then work out who's best to buy it from...

Depending on how much you've got to play with, you might decide you agree that Lifestrategy is all you need, as per thread title .

Or you might stick with an extension of what you have, after having concluded like Zola about 60 posts in, "This is a good thread, I am glad it sparked a debate. I think the bottom line is: All investments are a form of gambling." Which is an interesting conclusion given that the previous 60 posts hadn't really said that.

badger09

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The other way you could put it, is that you only have to pay what you want to pay for.

So if you don't want or need a load of research editorial and glossy website and smartphone app and a larger customer service team and a few more fund options from a bigger DIY fund business - then there is absolutely no need to pay almost half a percent a year of a large pile of capital, for those services at HL.

Therefore if you want to get what IWeb has got, for the price they want to charge, it can be a very smart move to go there (or somewhere else with cheap service/transaction fees)and get exactly what you want to pay for.

Precisely. The only downside to IWeb so far, has been the unavailability of some of the multi asset/multi index funds I've been considering alongside my VLS, VGSC & VEM.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I'll probably get them to move their ISAs away from HL this summer (though might keep a small cheap SIPP there), so part of the reason I've been looking at what's available on other platforms is with that in mind.

That is what I did. My SIPP contributions are limited to £3600 a year so I've left it there. It gives me access to all the bells & whistles of HL for a relatively modest fee:)

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The standard advice you've probably heard a hundred times here is decide what you want first, and then work out who's best to buy it from...

I know.

I know I want to add some Mid Caps and probably something similar to VLS but that's as far as I've got. When I think I've finally made a decision, I find I can't get my chosen fund on IWeb so either start all over again, or rather, put off thinking about it for another few days:o

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Depending on how much you've got to play with, you might decide you agree that Lifestrategy is all you need, as per thread title .

Or you might stick with an extension of what you have, after having concluded like Zola about 60 posts in, "This is a good thread, I am glad it sparked a debate. I think the bottom line is: All investments are a form of gambling." Which is an interesting conclusion given that the previous 60 posts hadn't really said that.

More than I want to simply dump in VLS;) £20k now, another £40k from a cash ISA + next year's ISA allowance.

Clearly I've decided VLS isn't all I need, or I wouldn't have started my 'Dithering' thread:D

It doesn't feel like gambling to me, but then my experience of that is limited to an annual £20 flutter on the Grand National:p

Zola.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The other way you could put it, is that you only have to pay what you want to pay for.

So if you don't want or need a load of research editorial and glossy website and smartphone app and a larger customer service team and a few more fund options from a bigger DIY fund business - then there is absolutely no need to pay almost half a percent a year of a large pile of capital, for those services at HL.

Therefore if you want to get what IWeb has got, for the price they want to charge, it can be a very smart move to go there (or somewhere else with cheap service/transaction fees)and get exactly what you want to pay for.

My mum and dad have it as some "filler" in their respective ISA portfolios, but I only suggested they use it because it's cheap when you're already paying the 0.45% anyway - if they weren't already there, I wouldn't suggest they go there and pay the huge platform fee just for the privilege of being able to buy that fund cheap

I'll probably get them to move their ISAs away from HL this summer (though might keep a small cheap SIPP there), so part of the reason I've been looking at what's available on other platforms is with that in mind.


The standard advice you've probably heard a hundred times here is decide what you want first, and then work out who's best to buy it from...

Depending on how much you've got to play with, you might decide you agree that Lifestrategy is all you need, as per thread title .

Or you might stick with an extension of what you have, after having concluded like Zola about 60 posts in, "This is a good thread, I am glad it sparked a debate. I think the bottom line is: All investments are a form of gambling." Which is an interesting conclusion given that the previous 60 posts hadn't really said that.

Alright alright alright, maybe over the top with saying 'gambling', but the point I was making was more so, dont chuck money in unless you are prepared to lose something on it, POTENTIALLY

Fatbritabroad

Side question on this topic. Why would you go for the vls 80 or 60 at the moment when everything I've read says that bonds don't provide the same diversification as they used to due to quantative easing And low interest rates? I ended up putting mine into vls 100 . Is that sound reasoning or have I misunderstood?

JohnRo

It depends on your investment horizon, if you've the stomach for volatility it should, long term, provide a better outcome.