Comparing VLS with L&G's equivalent Multi Index?

justme111

Most likely as irm does not know which approach will end up with more money he/she holds both.

Audaxer

justme111 wrote: »

Most likely as irm does not know which approach will end up with more money he/she holds both.

Agree with above, and also possibly simply because he/she doesn't want to put all eggs in the one basket.

Not_Me_Officer

justme111 wrote: »

Most likely as irm does not know which approach will end up with more money he/she holds both.

But then nobody knows but most people tend to stick to one don't they?

I'm not knocking their reasoning if that's their reason, because that's pretty much what my approach would be

dunstonh

But then nobody knows but most people tend to stick to one don't they?

No reason to stick with one. When using multi-asset funds, I tend to go upto £50k per fund house to stay within FSCS limits.

Audaxer

dunstonh wrote: »

No reason to stick with one. When using multi-asset funds, I tend to go upto £50k per fund house to stay within FSCS limits.

Just wondering if you have any concerns about going over the £50k FSCS limit on a platform?

What platforms to IFAs use - do you have their own platforms?

dunstonh

Just wondering if you have any concerns about going over the £50k FSCS limit on a platform?

A similar discussion took place in the pensions section recently (as SIPPs have the same £50k FSCS protection unlike personal pensions and stakeholder pensions which have 100% with no upper limit). So, apologies for the overlap for those that read that.

I am not particularly concerned. However, sometimes risks can be underestimated or complacency set in. Endowments had generations of paying big surpluses and had never failed to pay out in excess of target. Until they did. SCARPs had never failed. Until they did. Lehmans would never fail. It was too big and important. Until it did.

So, whilst today, we consider the risks very low, it is still a risk and risk events will happen at some point. That is why they are called risks. If there was no risk, then it would be guaranteed not to happen. However, it is not guaranteed. No-one says it is. Also, if it is such a low risk, how come you only get £50k on the FSCS? Why so little compared to cash savings (which has had failures that people thought could never happen again) and personal pensions and stakeholder pensions

So, my view is why take the risk in the first place if you dont need to.

What platforms to IFAs use - do you have their own platforms?

Most platforms cater for their respective markets. Most of the DIY platforms do not accept business via IFAs and most IFA platforms do not accept DIY investors. This is partly due to the fact that most IFA platforms see the IFA doing the work. So, the staff at the platform dont have as much work to do as they would with a consumer platform. If that platform wanted to cater for the DIY market then it would need to employ more staff. So, it has to be confident that it going to achieve the critical mass required to cover that, the costs of software changes and go on to be profitable. Its worth noting that most platforms are loss making. Some platforms have fudged their way into both markets with varying success. However, you tend to find compromises that are less than ideal.

TheTracker

Do all IFAs have such a convention?
If not, why not?
What would explain the different approaches from different IFAs, if there is a difference?

dunstonh

Do all IFAs have such a convention?
If not, why not?
What would explain the different approaches from different IFAs, if there is a difference?

I am not in the position to speak for 20,000 others.
The point of being independent is that you make independent decisions based on independent research and analysis. Some of which will be based on your own opinion and experience.

Audaxer

dunstonh wrote: »

A similar discussion took place in the pensions section recently (as SIPPs have the same £50k FSCS protection unlike personal pensions and stakeholder pensions which have 100% with no upper limit). So, apologies for the overlap for those that read that.

I am not particularly concerned. However, sometimes risks can be underestimated or complacency set in. Endowments had generations of paying big surpluses and had never failed to pay out in excess of target. Until they did. SCARPs had never failed. Until they did. Lehmans would never fail. It was too big and important. Until it did.

So, whilst today, we consider the risks very low, it is still a risk and risk events will happen at some point. That is why they are called risks. If there was no risk, then it would be guaranteed not to happen. However, it is not guaranteed. No-one says it is. Also, if it is such a low risk, how come you only get £50k on the FSCS? Why so little compared to cash savings (which has had failures that people thought could never happen again) and personal pensions and stakeholder pensions

So, my view is why take the risk in the first place if you dont need to.

Thanks, I agree and am a bit vary of going over the £50k limit, but do you this the risk of investing say £100k on one platform, is greater or less than the risk of investing £100k in one fund house?

dunstonh

but do you this the risk of investing say £100k on one platform, is greater or less than the risk of investing £100k in one fund house?

Picking multiple funds is a doddle. Spreading across multiple platforms is creating a whole load of work.

Platforms do not have access to your money invested. It is ring fenced and cannot be called upon. With risks being a sliding scale, the risk at that level is very very low. To mitigate that risk would require a level of administration and hassle that most would not be happy with and would consider it overkill for the scale of risk you are taking. Doing it at fund level is easy and painless. In most cases, you have multiple funds that meet criteria and pass your due diligence and you never know in advance which is going to be best. So, doing it at fund level creates none of that hassle.

Crossing a road is a risk but we do it every day. Leaning up to pick something off the shelf is a risk. Eating food is a risk. Some risks you have to take as you have no choice. Some risks you can mitigate through choice.