S&S ISA by financial advisor - opinions needed

AnotherJoe

Alice_Holt wrote: »

As your portfolio is reasonably aggressive, are you happy to accept it's value falling over certain time periods during the 10 years?

Any investment portfolio could fall over certain time periods irrespective of the % equities or how aggressive it is. Its a risk you take when you invest.

Sue58

bcfclee27 wrote: »

Thanks all, you have put my mind at ease with my investments.

Am going to leave it as is and see how things go.

In a few years once all the money the IFA has been shuttled into the S&S ISAs I will have about 40k left to invest.
This gives me a couple years to research and then I plan to have a go with that 40k on my own.

Best of both worlds if you like.

If it were now I'd either split between HSBC Global Strategy and VLS 60 or put it all in HSBC.
The reason I'd favour HSBC is it dilutes my uk exposure.

What are people's thoughts on this ?

Kind Regards
Lee

The HSBC Global Strategy Balanced fund has performed slightly better than VLS 60 over the past 5 years and is a cheaper fund for a returns based multi asset fund. As you already mentioned, it also has a more balanced exposure to the UK.

I'm not sure how this compares with your Brewin Dolphin portfolio but I'd be tempted to check out the returns your portfolio has made over the past 5 years compared to the HSBC and VLS funds? If the BD returns are similar or in fact made less I would seriously consider investing your money with HSBC or Vangard because over the years you will save a substantial amount in fees alone.

Linton

Sue58 wrote: »

.........
I'm not sure how this compares with your Brewin Dolphin portfolio but I'd be tempted to check out the returns your portfolio has made over the past 5 years compared to the HSBC and VLS funds? If the BD returns are similar or in fact made less I would seriously consider investing your money with HSBC or Vangard because over the years you will save a substantial amount in fees alone.

One doesnt buy a 60/40 fund simply to maximise returns, risk limitation is a close secondary objective. So it doesnt make sense to purely compare such funds on performance.

GreenSnake

Why pay an IFA to just put money in a fund for you?
Does this IFA have a crystal ball?

I would just diversify myself, according to risk.
The information on fund fees is as clear as it's ever been.

Audaxer

Linton wrote: »

One doesnt buy a 60/40 fund simply to maximise returns, risk limitation is a close secondary objective. So it doesnt make sense to purely compare such funds on performance.

Do you mean compare them on volatility?

Linton

Audaxer wrote: »

Do you mean compare them on volatility?

Possibly, but the problem with that is the generally available volatility data tends to be pretty short term. One is really more concerned about performance during significant price falls over a period of years. Short term data may give an indication but it is far from definitive.

Audaxer

Linton wrote: »

Possibly, but the problem with that is the generally available volatility data tends to be pretty short term. One is really more concerned about performance during significant price falls over a period of years. Short term data may give an indication but it is far from definitive.

Yes, we don't yet know how the likes of VLS60 or HSBC Global Managed would fair in an equity crash. In a crash similar to 2008 I would hope they would not fall more than 25 to 30% but who knows.

One managed multi asset fund I do like the look of that has been going for 30 years is the Baillie Gifford Managed B fund with has 76% equity yet only fell around a maximum of 30% in 2008. Any thoughts on that fund?

ValiantSon

dunstonh wrote: »

What makes you think cheap is best?

Our model portfolio has consistently beaten VLS60 despite being more expensive. Costs are certainly important but they are a secondary consideration to how you invest. And is that the same Vanguard that has just been caught hiding over 50% of its charges on the VLS funds by not declaring them in the OCF?

Vanguard aren't the only fund managers who have previously not declared transaction costs. While I don't dispute that Vanguard's effective costs are higher than people may previously have thought, the same is true of lots of other products not managed by Vanguard, so your comment, as it stands, is itself a little misleading. I know that you were responding to a point specifically about Vanguard LifeStrategy 60, but by ignoring that Vanguard were not alone in this you created the false impression that Vanguard had been doing something intrinsically wrong (not the case) and different to the rest of the industry (also not the case).

dunstonh wrote: »

And if one of my clients was to follow your free advice, they would get less. Plus, they would have issues with CGT (when you consider the value a typical IFA investor has)

CGT is irrelevant; the investment will be inside an ISA wrapper.

One of your clients may get a lower return, but the OP is not one of your clients and, as far as we know, the portfolio they have been advised to invest in is not the portfolio that you use in your "model portfolio".

GreenSnake

Audaxer wrote: »

Yes, we don't yet know how the likes of VLS60 or HSBC Global Managed would fair in an equity crash. In a crash similar to 2008 I would hope they would not fall more than 25 to 30% but who knows.

One managed multi asset fund I do like the look of that has been going for 30 years is the Baillie Gifford Managed B fund with has 76% equity yet only fell around a maximum of 30% in 2008. Any thoughts on that fund?

The funds will fall in value according to how their underlying assets fall in value.
You should know what the assets are.
But no one can say how well they will perform or fall.

ValiantSon

bcfclee27 wrote: »

The IFA gave us a 25% discount due to his business relationship with my father in law.

He charges us 2.25% initial one off charge.
0.75% ongoing advisor fee.

Those fees are with a 0.25% discount on his normal price? :eek: I'm not convinced that using your father-in-law's name (and contact) has helped you.

I won't comment on the one-off charge beyond wondering what £2250 has actually bought you.

The ongoing fee is high. As dunstonh has said, I'd expect more like a 0.5% fee, so you are being charged 50% more than you might reasonably expect to pay.

The portfolio also looks very ordinary and I have to concur with others that you might have been better off going down the DIY route with a multi asset tracker.