Lifestrategy or.....

Matt002

Dunstonh do you ever use the Blackrock Consensus funds at all? Any thoughts on them v the others mentioned in this thread?

Audaxer

dunstonh wrote: »

You have it back to front. L&G gives greater certainty as they are not constrained to an equity level. They focus on a volatility range and make adjustments to ensure they do not exceed that range.

A more cautious/nervous investor is better placed with L&G over VLS

Presumably that means that the L&G Multi Index fund would do better in an equity crash than VLS? But how could any fund be sure to stick to a certain volatility range in a big equity crash?

As equities started falling in value during a crash, the VLS fund would presumably automatically rebalance by buying more equities as the price falls, so could that mean it will bounce back quicker than the L&G fund when markets start to recover?

dunstonh

Matt002 wrote: »

Dunstonh do you ever use the Blackrock Consensus funds at all? Any thoughts on them v the others mentioned in this thread?

No. I have used a number of the underlying funds in bespoke portfolios (i.e. the ishares trackers) but I cant recall using the consensus funds. From memory, I think they drop off the research as not being as good as VLS for return focused and not as good as L&G for risk targetted.

Presumably that means that the L&G Multi Index fund would do better in an equity crash than VLS?

Theoretically yes. However, it would depend on which area of equities is suffering the biggest drop.

But how could any fund be sure to stick to a certain volatility range in a big equity crash?

Volatility is averaged over a period. Most target risk funds look at 90-95% of events.

As equities started falling in value during a crash, the VLS fund would presumably automatically rebalance by buying more equities as the price falls, so could that mean it will bounce back quicker than the L&G fund when markets start to recover?

Both would be rebalancing and it is possible that the L&G could buy more equities as it is not constrained by a rigid figure. We will have to see as neither has been around during a major crash.

JustAnotherSaver

I must have this confused totally.

So reading here i learn that the VLS range are heavily biased towards the UK market.
Yet reading on they also have a heavy American bias too?

Is that actually correct?

After reading a little on the topic i came to believe that in my position - with 30 years ahead of me before retirement, that a global investment would be better than say a UK biased one.

So on that & reading on here that would mean that the VLS range is and isn't suitable? ... confusing.




On another note...

with my severe lack of knowledge i liked the feature of the VLS range with the auto-rebalancing. Low maintenance. Basically select & forget.

There must be other options out there that are on a par (select & forget with the auto-rebalancing)? Anything that is more global than UK biased?

firestone

the best thing is to check the holdings of the fund on Trustnet or Morningstar to see what you are comfortable with as an allocation .I have mainly active funds/IT with a couple of trackers but was thinking of a multi asset fund for a small pension rather then transferring.
But its got me thinking is Multi asset just a good marketing term in the sense that old style insurance funds,pensions and endowment are multi asset or governed funds as there called now.Are absolute return funds in theory not just very cautious multi asset funds?

bostonerimus

dunstonh wrote: »

Fee is not everything though. It is a secondary consideration to suitability.

If you ask someone if they would rather pay 0.22% or 0.75% then they will say 0.22%.

However, if you say would you rather have got 73.16% after charges of 0.22% or 91.65% after charges of 0.75% then the answer will likely be different.

Of course a financial advisor is going to defend the fees they charge as giving value. I'll accept that in terms of general advice, but not for investment gain without a guarantee. If a financial advisor charges a percentage of the investment gain and would actually pay the client for any losses or underperformance against a previously agreed bench mark then I'd be impressed.

Maybe you could share the asset allocation of your portfolios so we can do a comparison with VLS60.

TBC15

If the OP is looking 12-15yrs ahead, why would he be looking at VLS60?

bostonerimus

TBC15 wrote: »

If the OP is looking 12-15yrs ahead, why would he be looking at VLS60?

Historically 60/40 has been a good risk to return compromise. Maybe present bond markets would lead you to a smaller bond allocation. Another question is what would a Core Four look like for the UK.....certainly not 30 to 40% domestic equities.

dunstonh

Of course a financial advisor is going to defend the fees they charge as giving value.

I have been posting here a very long time and have always said there is room for DIY and room for advice and different people need different things.
I will defend the value of good advice as much as I defend the right for people to DIY. I have no bias to either. Just as I have no bias to managed or passive. I will go where it is best to go.

I'll accept that in terms of general advice, but not for investment gain without a guarantee.

You are free to make that investment management decision. Just as others are free to make theirs.

Maybe you could share the asset allocation of your portfolios so we can do a comparison with VLS60.

The allocations we use are fluid and bought in. They are also based on timescale (short, medium and long). The closest match to VLS60 (and assuming long term) is currently 25.0% fixed interest, 43% global equity, 10% property and 23% UK equity (contains 10 funds of which 5 are passive and 5 are active). This time last year it was 27.5% fixed interest, 46% global equity, 9.5% property and 17% uk equity (4 passive and 6 active). There were two fund changes over that 12 months and all weightings in each fund are different.

If the OP is looking 12-15yrs ahead, why would he be looking at VLS60?

I know what you are suggesting and most experienced investors will. However, there is no point a new investor or cautious investor going higher if the first thing they do when they get a statement after a crash is panic and pull out.

You know all those people who say they lost money on the stockmarket and will never invest on it again. They are people that invested above their behavioural tolerance. They may have been able to afford the higher risk and timescale may have made it sensible but if they cant handle in negative periods, they need to move down the risk scale.

ffacoffipawb

I am investing 100% of my occupational money purchase scheme into the only multi asset fund available (Aviva Ex Friends Life) which is "Aviva Pension Newton Multi-Asset Balanced FP".

Not sure if it is any good. Have a 6 figure size fund now (just).

I am up 14% (over the 2 years, not annually!) over the last 2 years including ongoing contributions.

I do have a much larger SIPP via Youinvest which is invested in various Investment Trusts. Performance over last 2 years is similar.