Vanguard life strategy - return

IanSt

economic wrote: »

all nonsense. you have no idea if the markets will have returned above inflation by the time you need access to it.

Historically holding onto a fund has proven to be statistically better than to attempt to time your selling/repurchasing.

economic wrote: »

there is always a time to buy and time to sell any market. remember that

Indeed there is - but unfortunately that is usually only known in hindsight.

economic

IanSt wrote: »

Historically holding onto a fund has proven to be statistically better than to attempt to time your selling/repurchasing.



Indeed there is - but unfortunately that is usually only known in hindsight.

past history is no indication of future returns.

i will take my chances with risk management. imo thats the best way. buy and hold is a lot riskier. take a look at japan.

Prism

economic wrote: »

i will take my chances with risk management. imo thats the best way. buy and hold is a lot riskier. take a look at japan.

Thing is, its not really risk management when nobody has any clue what the risks are or the likelihood of those risks occuring. For every expert saying there is a crash around the corner there is another saying this is just the beginning of a recovery.

Take the US tax cuts. Will this cause the stock market to go higher or lower? Is the plan better or worse than peoples expectations? Is the rise in the stock market over the last two months to do with these expectations? How does anyone deal without knowing any of these facts? Basically they guess.

I'm not saying its not possible to be good at this as some fund managers have shown. It takes good research to get that kind of edge though, and a fair bit of luck. I certainly wouldnt presume I am remotely skilled at it and therefore don't bother.

bostonerimus

economic wrote: »

past history is no indication of future returns.

i will take my chances with risk management. imo thats the best way. buy and hold is a lot riskier. take a look at japan.

Risk management is good. My approach to this was to rebalance a 60/40 portfolio within a +/-5% band. I think if you apply some quantitative metrics rather than "gut" to your risk management strategy you'll do ok. Being in the market for just 2 years means you have not invested through a serious down turn. During those gut reactions can get you into serious trouble.

Simple buy and hold can be a good strategy. Doing that for the S&P500 from 1987 to now would have netted you 10% average annual returns....even with 2007 in there.

bostonerimus

economic wrote: »

that said i have bought back into the funds yesterday morning as i expected the tax bill to pass. it has passed so i am expecting markets to surge more from here.

So did you buy in at a higher or lower price?

economic

bostonerimus wrote: »

So did you buy in at a higher or lower price?

I actually bought back in a few days later - i was getting sellers remorse. Ended up making £500 from the "trading", if you can call it that.

Glad i did as i made another £3k from it since i bought back in!

aberlyfid_2000

25% is a good return relative to the alternative returns out there, excluding cryptocurrencies though!

however, past returns are not an indicator of future returns, so there's no indication that you will receive another 25% or even preserve your capital in the next period.

sixpence.

Hello, I have read through large chunks of this thread and found it really helpful so thanks to everyone who has contributed past and present

I am thinking of getting a VL but am torn between the 20 or 40.

I am only 28 years old (about the same age as the OP now probably) and want to hold this for at least 20 years. I have a higher risk approach to the rest of my portfolio, that's why I'm thinking of just getting the 20 and then bolstering my portfolio with a global tracker fund and/or a ftse 250 tracker fund as well as some growth funds and blue chip shares.

The 20 VL would basically just be a way of me holding down lots diverse of bonds with a bit of equity thrown into the mix for higher returns.

Does anyone think I should just stop being silly and go for the 40?

Eco_Miser

sixpence. wrote: »

I am only 28 years old (about the same age as the OP now probably) and want to hold this for at least 20 years. I have a higher risk approach to the rest of my portfolio, that's why I'm thinking of just getting the 20 and then bolstering my portfolio with a global tracker fund and/or a ftse 250 tracker fund as well as some growth funds and blue chip shares.

Can you explain why you don't just go for VLS 60 or 80 ?

dunstonh

I am only 28 years old (about the same age as the OP now probably) and want to hold this for at least 20 years. I have a higher risk approach to the rest of my portfolio, that's why I'm thinking of just getting the 20 and then bolstering my portfolio with a global tracker fund and/or a ftse 250 tracker fund as well as some growth funds and blue chip shares.

The point of a multi-asset fund is to have someone controlling the asset allocation for you. You are paying for that in increased charges over the single sector funds.

By you picking single sector funds as well, you are breaking the asset allocation and making your own investment management decisions and this means you are paying for something that you are not really utilising.

So, what investment strategy are you following or is it bit hit and hope?
Which fund(s) fit your strategy?