HSBC Global Strategy Dynamic vs L&G MI 6/7

Dird

bowlhead99 wrote: »

But those sort of changes are not being made with a view to achieving a particular level of volatility to actively cap or manage risk. The holdings are passive trackers.

https://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/PortfolioHistory.aspx?fundCode=ACFDV&univ=O

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't say if the index weighting changes are from conscious tweaks or performance

bowlhead99

masonic wrote: »

Presumably one gets a small property allocation by investing in the FTSE All share, which contains several REITs. I don't think that would typically be counted, and I assume the property in HL's x-ray is of a similar nature. 2% is fairly inconsequential.

Yes Masonic, Vanguard have said in interviews/promos before that there is no deliberate allocation to property other than the small percentage you get as a result of a proportion of the various regional equity indices being vehicles such as REITs, just like a proportion are banks and a proportion are healthcare and a proportion are oil and gas etc.

I saw one video clip in which their guy observed that in the credit crunch, commercial property crashed anyway so was not an effective diversifier to equity. As they are in the index game rather than the commercial property management game you can understand that indexes are their preference, and given the inherent volatility you can also understand them not bothering to have "an index of REITs" as a separate holding.

StellaN wrote: »

That really does explain the difference in detail so thank you bowlhead.

So what about the other fund the HSBC Global Strategy Dynamic please?

I have looked at and given comments on that before but can't recall them off the top of my head (and can't be bothered trying to dig them out... long day!).

The important thing for you is, do you understand what their objectives are and what they do to accomplish them, and how, and do you believe it is suitable for you, and is there a reason why it could/ should/ would be better than something else that you already consider could be ok for you, and how have you challenged your own assertions.

Sally57

greatkingrat wrote: »

The big difference is the HSBC fund only has 5% in the UK, while the L&G fund has around 25%. So it is up to you whether you want a significant home bias or not.

So we now know that L&G is actively managed as opposed to VLS's static allocation. They both seem to have a UK holding of 25 per cent as opposed to the HSBC fund of 5 per cent.

Does anybody know if the HSBC fund is actively managed as L&G or static in allocation as the VLS funds?

m_c_s

http://www.assetmanagement.hsbc.com/uk/advisers/fund-range/global_strategy_funds.html

HSBC fund details - says all three strategy funds are actively managed.

Sean473

Sally57 wrote: »

So we now know that L&G is actively managed as opposed to VLS's static allocation. They both seem to have a UK holding of 25 per cent as opposed to the HSBC fund of 5 per cent.

Does anybody know if the HSBC fund is actively managed as L&G or static in allocation as the VLS funds?

I believe the HSBC fund is actively managed in a way. It is mostly following trackers but it looks like the % of each tracker is adjusted.hence the dynamic nature...

Sally57

m_c_s wrote: »

http://www.assetmanagement.hsbc.com/uk/advisers/fund-range/global_strategy_funds.html

HSBC fund details - says all three strategy funds are actively managed.

Well my husband has decided he will go with the HSBC Dynamic fund purely down to his particular preference in asset allocation and partially actively managed, also on performance over the past 5 years compared to the L&G fund..

MonroeM

Sally57 wrote: »

Well my husband has decided he will go with the HSBC Dynamic fund purely down to his particular preference in asset allocation and partially actively managed, also on performance over the past 5 years compared to the L&G fund..

It makes a change to hear some people discussing the L&G and HSBC multi asset options instead of the VLS funds! Interesting that these two are also actively managed so for example can change their asset allocation but keeping it within the specified risk/volatility profile!

MPN

MonroeM wrote: »

It makes a change to hear some people discussing the L&G and HSBC multi asset options instead of the VLS funds! Interesting that these two are also actively managed so for example can change their asset allocation but keeping it within the specified risk/volatility profile!

Yes,its amazing how many people don't even consider other multi asset funds and just plump for VLS funds. They possibly do this without even doing any research into other multi asset funds such as L&G and HSBC as well as other options that are available on the market.

Jon_W

Can I just clear-up some basic terminology, folks?

So the static mix a la Vanguard LS = mix determined at the outset and left to grow/shrink accordingly as % of total fund.

Does active mix allocation mean:

i) returning the fund to its initial bonds/equities and/or equities sector/country mix;
ii) tweaking the mix in according to performance expectations or;
iii) both of the aforementioned?

ColdIron

Jon_W wrote: »

So the static mix a la Vanguard LS = mix determined and the outset and left to grow/shrink accordingly as % of total fund.

If it was 'left to grow/shrink accordingly' it wouldn't be very static. It will be rebalanced periodically to return it to the static allocation, which can of course be changed by the fund manager(s)