HL VS Vanguard Portfolios

billpaul812

Ok, thank you for your replies and explanations, although I do feel a little as though I was being shot at for asking what might to you lot be a daft question. I didn't think this was the sort of forum where posters had to worry about that.

ValiantSon

billpaul812 wrote: »

Ok, thank you for your replies and explanations, although I do feel a little as though I was being shot at for asking what might to you lot be a daft question. I didn't think this was the sort of forum where posters had to worry about that.

I don't think anyone has been rude or unpleasant. What has happened is that some of us have questioned whether you are really at a point where you understand sufficiently how markets and investing work. We have raised some questions to try and help you see the flaws in your reasoning. All of this, I'm sure (and for my part, certain) was well-intentioned.

I am sorry if anything I wrote upset you.

Thrugelmir

billpaul812 wrote: »

Ok, thank you for your replies and explanations, although I do feel a little as though I was being shot at for asking what might to you lot be a daft question. I didn't think this was the sort of forum where posters had to worry about that.

There's no guarantees when investing. You'll never stop learning from the experiences. Keep asking questions. As mistakes made can be costly. You'll get used to not taking written words personally. Everybody has their different style.

billpaul812

Its ok folks I'm thicker skinned than that, I'll survive but thanks for the reassurances.

I bought into portfolio's, managed funds (whatever they are called) because I knew I didn't have the expertise to do it myself. I'm prepared for losses, I really didn't want to have money sitting in accounts where it was earning 1% and am prepared to take the associated risk. My question was purely based on a very short term observation, I got the response I expected really, I was just wondering ......

billpaul812

Thinking about this .... there was talk above about apples and pears and while I appreciate the point being made, both can in fact be consolidated under the term "investments" which implies profits and fund mangers and things and even though the investments will be in different places the judgement / expertise behind a fund that has slowly declined over the last 6 weeks with one that has grown surely raises concerns?

msallen

billpaul812 wrote: »

... the judgement / expertise behind a fund that has slowly declined over the last 6 weeks with one that has grown surely raises concerns?

I have no idea about the HL one because I don't use them but the Vanguard fund is not actively managed, so it has sod all to do with judgement (except that of the person holding the fund).

You really should have at least a basic grasp of what it is you are investing in before putting your money in.

jamei305

billpaul812 wrote: »

a fund that has slowly declined over the last 6 weeks with one that has grown surely raises concerns?

No, because you don't invest for weeks you invest for years. A fund that has slowly declined over six years might therefore raise concerns.

I am sure I can find a fund that has declined for six years, which over a period of just six weeks outperformed another fund that grew massively in those six years.

dunstonh

Financials, Medicals, Retail, Manufacturing sectors etc etc all have periods when they do better than others. Those periods will be at different times.

Funds also have different remits. A fund that is more defensive will do better at the stage of the economic cycle that suits that. Recovery/Spec Sits funds will do better in a different stage. Equity Income different again.

In volatile markets, those swings between stages can actually be weeks or months. Not just years. This is why you invest for the long term as you need to average all these out.

if you keep chasing the best performer of the last 6 months you will likely end up having a much lower investment return than someone who keeps chasing the worst performer of the last 6 months and the person that sensibly invests on a more stable basis.

ValiantSon

billpaul812 wrote: »

Thinking about this .... there was talk above about apples and pears and while I appreciate the point being made, both can in fact be consolidated under the term "investments" which implies profits and fund mangers and things and even though the investments will be in different places the judgement / expertise behind a fund that has slowly declined over the last 6 weeks with one that has grown surely raises concerns?

Six weeks is nothing and the picture could look very different in another six weeks, or months, or years.

As already stated, the Vanguard fund isn't actively managed, so it is just tracking the market, which is exactly what it is meant to do. I don't know which HL funds you have invested in, but the asset allocation will have an impact on exactly how it performs at any given point in the economic cycle.

While there is nothing wrong with you checking regularly because you are just interested to see what is happening, if that is making you question whether a fund is a good choice based on a very short timeframe then it suggests a few possibilities:

a) You are not ready to deal with investments and the highs and lows that come with them.
b) You have invested above your risk tolerance.
c) You would be better served by being a little bit less interested and only check how things are going every quarter, or six months, perhaps.

billpaul812

Neither a) or b) but c) I'll take. Thanks for the reply, appreciated.

FYI I have invested in a HL Portfolio Plus Medium Risk Growth fund through a SIP. Its doing well, but I do appreciate (honestly) that its the long term that matters and could change.

What does it mean when as you say, a fund is just tracking the market?