Keeping investing ratios consistent - asset allocation

grandst

If you are saving regularly volatility is your friend because of pound cost averaging. Something like a global investment trust would be ideal because of the volatility created by gearing and discounts.

ColdIron

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

...in that the answer would be no, just put it straight in to the fund as you don't get the full 5% (or 6% as mentioned in that link)

This is a well worn and fallacious argument, the answer would be yes. If you have £250 available per month you will get 5% on every penny you put in. If you can find an account that pays interest on money that you have not, and may never, deposit let us know, I'm sure it will be wildly popular.

JustAnotherSaver

ColdIron wrote: »

Well at 100% equities there are some entire asset classes missing on the diversification front and if this is your issue then VLS80 (with its 10,000 extra bond holdings) would be an easy solution to the obvious omission without adding a separate fund. You could argue that with a 30 year investment horizon bonds could be a drag on performance but equally there is an argument that different asset classes have a rebalancing value in different market conditions, I think Hale does cover this. Most ready made pension funds will not be equity only

Yes i just got to that section a few days ago actually in the book. The whiskey & water i believe he referred to it as.

What did you have in mind?

At this moment in time was just to find out what VLS100 is lacking & look at incorporating that. What 'that' may be i don't really know yet.
Referencing the book again, it made me wonder earlier this week if VLS100 was a tad much (whiskey & water again) and that i should've instead gone for the VLS80. I read on here from someone which was on the lines of "there's virtually no difference between VLS80 & VLS100" which did slightly influence me going for VLS100. It wasn't the deciding factor at all but it was a contributing one, but the deeper i get in to his book the more i'm thinking VLS80 would give a better balancing act.


Question then is where to go from here should i decide on that. To leave £9k in VLS100 & switch monthly payments to VLS80 or to look at switching.

Not wanting to wait on being given the best answer i'll tell you my thought process from that-

i was thinking it would be better to leave £9k with VLS as it stands and continue with VLS80 (if that's what i choose) because for one i imagine there's a charge for switching from one fund to another, also when i'm done, £9k wont even be a large percentage of the final pot. The VLS100 will do no harm as it is but as a mor elong term plan the VLS80 would probably be better.

Something to that effect.

JustAnotherSaver

ColdIron wrote: »

This is a well worn and fallacious argument, the answer would be yes. If you have £250 available per month you will get 5% on every penny you put in. If you can find an account that pays interest on money that you have not, and may never, deposit let us know, I'm sure it will be wildly popular.

I had a feeling my answer would be the wrong one :rotfl:I'm getting used to it.

badger09

ColdIron wrote: »

................... What did you have in mind?

Sometimes less is more

Courtesy of W1A:

“The fact is, this is about us identifying what we do best and finding more ways of doing less of it better,” Director of Better Anna Rampton (Sarah Parish) intones to widespread agreement, while David Tennant’s narrator puffs up the BBC’s exciting new “opportunity to question everything it does, and ask the question whether there’s any point to any of it at all any more.”