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

Audaxer

ewaste wrote: »

Surely even if a platform goes bust your underlying investment isn't actually with them it's shares or a holding in a fund which in turn is also shares or other assets?

I would imagine the risk of a fund especially a passive index tracker going bust is extremely remote if not realistically impossible given the number of companies that would need to go bust. There would be much bigger problems to worry about than a fund going bust.

The risk is a major fraud happening in a fund house or platform. I would think another risk would be a major cyber attack.

Not_Me_Officer

irm wrote: »

Pretty much as has been mentioned really.

I've had the ISA for a few years and been happy with it, so when my employer closed our defined benefit final salary pensions in April and moved us all over to defined contribution I figured I may as well invest in a similar way within that platform, but why not try a slightly different fund just for the hell of it. Plus it gives me something new to graph in Microsoft Money

That was similar i guess to my thinking.

I could've just lumped £10k in VLS60. I've already got money in VLS100 for another situation. Relatives have also put money in the varying VLS funds between 40 & 100.

I could've stayed with VLS & gone for the VLS60 but i figured why not google for an alternative that is somewhat similar. That's when i got results for the L&G MI as well as BlackRock Consensus & i'm sure another was mentioned also.

After reading a bit i wanted to just try out the L&G version. Stick £5k in one & £5k in the other at the same time to give a fair comparison & see what the outcome is in 5-10 years time.

I know the L&G has a slightly higher charge on it. Without going back & looking i think it was something like 0.31 vs 0.22. I'm not sure what that equates to over time but regardless, i wanted to try something different for a change.

A_T

There is also the HSBC Global Strategy funds: Cautious, Balanced and Dynamic. The fees are less than VLS plus they have no home bias and include REITs.

dunstonh

I know the L&G has a slightly higher charge on it. Without going back & looking i think it was something like 0.31 vs 0.22. I'm not sure what that equates to over time but regardless, i wanted to try something different for a change.

L&G has property and that is the slight drag on the cost. However, to put the cost difference in context, it is less than 1 minute trading in the market a year (i.e. the market can move by more than that amount in less than a minute). L&G also have a super clean share class at 0.24%

justme111

A_T wrote: »

There is also the HSBC Global Strategy funds: Cautious, Balanced and Dynamic. The fees are less than VLS plus they have no home bias and include REITs.

That is the one I chosen for my new money when/if it comes

TheTracker

dunstonh wrote: »

However, to put the cost difference in context, it is less than 1 minute trading in the market a year (i.e. the market can move by more than that amount in less than a minute).

That's putting fee data OUT of context not IN context. It's akin to climate change skeptics saying an annual temperature change of say 0.1 degrees Celsius isn't important because the temperature can vary by more than that day by day or minute by minute. "Don't be too concerned about a 0.1% pa difference in fees, the market can change by more than that amount in a single minute" is a nonsense and misleading statement, especially coming from a financial advisor.

bigadaj

TheTracker wrote: »

That's putting fee data OUT of context not IN context. It's akin to climate change skeptics saying an annual temperature change of say 0.1 degrees Celsius isn't important because the temperature can vary by more than that day by day or minute by minute. "Don't be too concerned about a 0.1% pa difference in fees, the market can change by more than that amount in a single minute" is a nonsense and misleading statement, especially coming from a financial advisor.

I'd agree with the financial anology, but not the environmental one.

dunstonh

TheTracker wrote: »

That's putting fee data OUT of context not IN context. It's akin to climate change skeptics saying an annual temperature change of say 0.1 degrees Celsius isn't important because the temperature can vary by more than that day by day or minute by minute. "Don't be too concerned about a 0.1% pa difference in fees, the market can change by more than that amount in a single minute" is a nonsense and misleading statement, especially coming from a financial advisor.

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. Your comparison with temperature is not valid as you are looking for stability or even perhaps a slight drop. With markets, its going up and there is no stability. People worrying about 0.1% p.a. when the market moves by more than that in a minute need a little reminder of the context.

We see people on here delaying days, weeks, even months why they worry about 0.x% p.a. yet in that time, the markets have moved by far more than the 0.x% they were worried about.

Audaxer

dunstonh wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. Your comparison with temperature is not valid as you are looking for stability or even perhaps a slight drop. With markets, its going up and there is no stability. People worrying about 0.1% p.a. when the market moves by more than that in a minute need a little reminder of the context.

We see people on here delaying days, weeks, even months why they worry about 0.x% p.a. yet in that time, the markets have moved by far more than the 0.x% they were worried about.

If you have say, £100k invested with HSBC Global Strategy Balanced the OCF would amount to £190 per annum. With a VLS fund it would be £220 per annum. With a L&G Multi Index fund it would be £310 per annum. Maybe not much difference in the scheme of things, but may make you think when you combine it with how much platform charge you are paying.

TheTracker

dunstonh wrote: »

We see people on here delaying days, weeks, even months why they worry about 0.x% p.a. yet in that time, the markets have moved by far more than the 0.x% they were worried about.

Oh sure, I agree with that. But that's not what you said.