Portfolio Fund Assistance

Linton

DennisTenus wrote: »

I've noticed that some funds have a lower selling price than than the buy price. Why is this?

I guess this means for at least a while you are at a loss straight away. Is it to dissuade people from selling quickly?

Yes - signing on new unit holders and deleting old unit holders takes administrative effort. If the costs created by frequent traders arent paid by the traders they will be paid for by everyone else who isnt trading, hidden in the overall charge. So in principle a buy/sell split price is fairer all round. But investors tend not to like it because they think, possibly rightly or possibly wrongly, that the split is just an extra cost.

DennisTenus

Linton wrote: »

Yes - signing on new unit holders and deleting old unit holders takes administrative effort. If the costs created by frequent traders arent paid by the traders they will be paid for by everyone else who isnt trading, hidden in the overall charge. So in principle a buy/sell split price is fairer all round. But investors tend not to like it because they think, possibly rightly or possibly wrongly, that the split is just an extra cost.

I see. Thanks. I can understand that but some of them the difference is quite considerable. Something to watch out for definitely which I think I missed previously.

Whats the "general" if there is such a thing, Baillie Gifford Managed fund people mentioned previously thats similar to VLS80? This one...?
https://iwebfunds.webfg.com/index.php?section=sheet&idShareclass=F0GBR04RNH

Alexland

DennisTenus wrote: »

I see. Thanks. I can understand that but some of them the difference is quite considerable. Something to watch out for definitely which I think I missed previously.

I wouldn't avoid a fund just because it has a different buy/sell price - the funds that have the same price are just absorbing the trades in their ongoing admin costs so you pay either way.

DennisTenus

Alexland wrote: »

I wouldn't avoid a fund just because it has a different buy/sell price - the funds that have the same price are just absorbing the trades in their ongoing admin costs so you pay either way.

Even if the difference is quite high?


I assume when HL and other providers/people talk about "rebalancing" a portfolio, they mean to start with someone may decide y% in A and z% in B and w% in C etc, then over time those % move due to up's and down's and so it's not the same % started out at, so rebalancing is getting it back the original % set for A B and C? In simple terms!

AlanP_2

DennisTenus wrote: »

Even if the difference is quite high?


I assume when HL and other providers/people talk about "rebalancing" a portfolio, they mean to start with someone may decide y% in A and z% in B and w% in C etc, then over time those % move due to up's and down's and so it's not the same % started out at, so rebalancing is getting it back the original % set for A B and C? In simple terms!

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. Not all your investments will grow / shrink at the same rate so, to keep aligned to your original Asset Allocation Plan you need to do a bit of maintenance occasionally.

Buying / Selling to get back to original plan is one way, reallocating future contributions is another way.

Don't get too stressed about smallish changes in allocation, they will tend to come out in the wash over a year or so.

DennisTenus

AlanP wrote: »

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. Not all your investments will grow / shrink at the same rate so, to keep aligned to your original Asset Allocation Plan you need to do a bit of maintenance occasionally.

Buying / Selling to get back to original plan is one way, reallocating future contributions is another way.

Don't get too stressed about smallish changes in allocation, they will tend to come out in the wash over a year or so.

Got it, thanks

DennisTenus

chrisgg wrote: »

At this stage, it seems it would be over complicating things to add funds such a Fundsmith to your portfolio. As Prism has said, it is difficult given we all have different priorities and concerns.

If you wanted to split it between active and passive, you could go with VLS 80 (assuming you are comfortable with the above average risk of this fund, and have the temperament/means to hold it in a market crash) and complement it an active multi asset fund such as Baillie Gifford Managed. This has low charges (for an active fund) and a similar equity weighting to VLS 80.

Based on this, you could gain investment experience of both active and passive, and decide which style suits you best and the one you're most comfortable with.

The Baillie Gifford Managed fund this one?
https://iwebfunds.webfg.com/index.php?section=sheet&idShareclass=F0GBR04RNH

chrisgg

DennisTenus wrote: »

The Baillie Gifford Managed fund this one?
https://iwebfunds.webfg.com/index.php?section=sheet&idShareclass=F0GBR04RNH

That's the one, yes

sixpence.

My plan/approach is to have tracker funds (including a VLS 60) make up about 85% of my portfolio. The VLS will make up about 73%/85%. I've left the rest to research and play with (15% in other equity funds the VLS doesn't cover like China etc).

I think Bowlhead has given some pretty sound advice: Either you do research or you stick it all in a VLS

sixpence.

Also can anyone point out to me where I can see P/E ratings for funds on trust.net? I can't find it... sorry for being slow