Should we Invest in only one fund?

racey

ian-d wrote: »

I actually think it is per firm, not fund.

That's what I thought.

bigadaj

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Eh?
The 300 year old National debt has doubled in 6 years

In very much devalued pounds, compared to both a basket of currencies and what you can purchase with them.

The cost of servicing that debt is also incredibly low.

darkidoe

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Don't forget the risks of holding Sterling. The equities side is split around thousands of the world's biggest companies, most of whom could be more solvent than the British Government. Having doubled the 300 year old National Debt in 6 years, we are still consuming more than we make, and borrowing to pay for it. This can't go on, but I see no plans to deal with it. Maybe they do have plans to deal with it, but are too scared to reveal them before the election?

I watched something recently regarding Debt. I think I am in the camp where I don't believe governments or the system in place has any way to deal with debt by repaying it anyhow. I think its all numbers anyway. There was something similar where a talk show host bought and wrote off debt from debt collection companies at less value than it was initially being priced at. I don't see why this can't go on forever or if it does come to an end, they will just reset the counter to zero. I am sure its more complicated than that but life's too short for me to figure it out.

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

300 years ago you could buy the employment of a household servant for a year for a couple of pounds, so the use of a 300 year scale to determine the appropriateness of what the government should borrow at current prices and interest rates is not very meaningful.

Fair Comment, but they still doubled the National Debt in 6 years whilst claiming inflation was low. We were told the 0.5% bank rate was an emergency measure to enable peple to repay their debts. That hasn't happened. They have just got hooked on low interest rates like a junkie on heroin to borrow more - which I thought was the cause of the 2008 financial crisis?

Glen_Clark

darkidoe wrote: »

I don't see why this can't go on forever.

You might like to keep borrowing forever, but your creditors might not keep lending you more money forever.

davieg11

slinga wrote: »

I've got 8 funds in my portfolio.
DIY after a big IFA cocked up for me.

One fund is about 40% of the portfolio - Old Mutual UK Mid Cap.

I never see it mentioned in these threads and always wonder why??

Does well for me.

Cracking Fund with a 12.62% yield since 2006 even though it took an almost 50% crash in 2008. I've been looking to add it to my portfolio but think I would only go 5% in case another crash is just around the corner.

darkidoe

Glen_Clark wrote: »

You might like to keep borrowing forever, but your creditors might not keep lending you more money forever.

Not if the Fed and Banks keep the money printing machine going. They like this thing which drives spending and stimulates 'growth'... Can you realistically see them stopping this cycle?

bowlhead99

Glen_Clark wrote: »

We were told the 0.5% bank rate was an emergency measure to enable peple to repay their debts.

No we weren't. Combined with the quantitative easing programmes being introduced worldwide it was to stimulate borrowing, spending and investment - because with interest rates too high people would have preferred to sit tight and pay down their debt taking money out of circulation and grinding the economy to a halt, damaging employment and productivity etc. So, the reasons given by BoE at the time and supported by economists and market commentators back in March 2009 seem to be the opposite of what you said 'we were told'.

Maybe it was just you who was told a different story just for fun, because they know that you will disbelieve anything a central bank or politician tells you anyway, believing you would have done it better yourself if you were in charge.

bostonerimus

How much of your income needs is covered by state pension and other final salary pensions?

Being in Vanguard LS60 you are diversified and paying low fees which is good. Adding an expensive actively managed fund for "income" is not what I would do. I would take a total return approach to income generation and Vanguard LS60 is a good vehicle for that.

grey_gym_sock

chockydavid1983 wrote: »

I know some things like PFI we can't do much about now I guess.

yes, we can. buy out the existing PFI contracts, funded by issuing gilts at negative real interest rates. this is complete no-brainer. huge money saving to the public sector. any political party that wants to really be responsible about not wasting public money should be proposing this.

also, obviously stop doing new PFI contracts. they're still going on.

i'm pretty sure the current labour party policy is to stop doing new PFI contracts (unlike the blair/brown governments, who massively expanded PFI). i don't think they've said they'll buy out old contracts, however.