Help to understand performance figures

johnlucas2018

Hi, I wonder if somebody could help me please. I am just looking at the performance figures for the Vanguard Life Strategy 60. I am comparing the past performance on the Vanguard site and HL site and trying to understand whether they are the same.

Vanguard appears to show big swings between higher and lower values. I appreciate that the reporting periods are different but are the values different due to any other factors. For example, are the values stated after the fund and platform charges?

Sorry if this is a simple question and thanks for your help.

VANGUARD WEBSITE - PAST PERFORMANCE
01 Jun 2013 to 31 May 2014 = 4.31%
01 Jun 2014 to 31 May 2015 = 11.34%
01 Jun 2015 to 31 May 2016 = 0.74%
01 Jun 2016 to 31 May 2017 = 19.68%
01 Jun 2017 to 31 May 2018 = 4.96%

HL WEBSITE PERFORMANCE - PAST ANNUAL RETURN
29/06/13 - 29/06/14 = 8.2%
29/06/14 - 29/06/15 = 7.05%
29/06/15 - 29/06/16 = 8.93%
29/06/16 - 29/06/17 = 14.35%
29/06/17 - 29/06/18 = 5.59%

dunstonh

I am comparing the past performance on the Vanguard site and HL site and trying to understand whether they are the same.

They are the same. However, snapshots will be different.

are the values stated after the fund and platform charges?

Fund performance figures are funds by themselves. Not platforms.

Alibert

Those differences can't be explaoned by timing (unless we had five truly astonishing Junes in a row )

HappyHarry

johnlucas2018 wrote: »

Hi, I wonder if somebody could help me please. I am just looking at the performance figures for the Vanguard Life Strategy 60. I am comparing the past performance on the Vanguard site and HL site and trying to understand whether they are the same.

Vanguard appears to show big swings between higher and lower values. I appreciate that the reporting periods are different but are the values different due to any other factors. For example, are the values stated after the fund and platform charges?

Sorry if this is a simple question and thanks for your help.

VANGUARD WEBSITE - PAST PERFORMANCE
01 Jun 2013 to 31 May 2014 = 4.31% 4.31%
01 Jun 2014 to 31 May 2015 = 11.34% 11.34%
01 Jun 2015 to 31 May 2016 = 0.74% 0.73%
01 Jun 2016 to 31 May 2017 = 19.68% 19.13%
01 Jun 2017 to 31 May 2018 = 4.96% 4.63%

HL WEBSITE PERFORMANCE - PAST ANNUAL RETURN
29/06/13 - 29/06/14 = 8.2% 8.20%
29/06/14 - 29/06/15 = 7.05% 7.07%
29/06/15 - 29/06/16 = 8.93% 8.92%
29/06/16 - 29/06/17 = 14.35% 14.35%
29/06/17 - 29/06/18 = 5.59% 5.59%

I've just run the figures through a third party - FE Analytics. Their results are in red above.

It seems that the differences in figures is purely down to timing.

AnotherJoe

7% difference over 5 years HL the "winner".

Quite a change for one months difference in starting date.

dunstonh

Strange that HL choose 1 year and a day. However, HL is also using FE Analytics for their figures. The addition of an extra day is probably an error by HL in their configuration as the default for FE is 1 year. Not 1 year, 1 day. e..g looking at FE Analytics today, it defaults to 03/07/ to 02/07. Whereas looking at HL today its 02/07 to 02/07.

Here are one year periods on the same fund using performance to end of last quarter vs calendar year. (also using FE Analytics)

0-12m	12m-24m	24m-36m	36m-48m	48m-60m
Fund	5.74%	12.51%	10.55%	7.28%	7.98%

YTD	2017	2016	2015	2014
Fund	1.12%	8.67%	18.27%	2.53%	9.36%

So, apart from the YTD, all periods are one year discrete. Dates do make a big difference.

Its also worth noting that all but two of those snapshots are higher than the long term average expected returns of the fund. I do fear that some people looking at 5 year figures are getting an unrealistic expectation of the level of volatility and the likely long term returns.

HappyHarry

AnotherJoe wrote: »

7% difference over 5 years HL the "winner".

Quite a change for one months difference in starting date.

Just for completeness ...

01/06/2013 - 29/06/2013 -3.55% (negative return)
31/05/2018 - 29/08/2018 -0.01% (negative return)

Keep_pedalling

HappyHarry wrote: »

Just for completeness ...

01/06/2013 - 29/06/2013 -3.55%
31/05/2018 - 29/08/2018 -0.01%

Are they minus figure, or just a confusing use of a - as a seperatot?

johnlucas2018

Thank you for the information. I think I get this. The fund grew by 4.31% from beginning June to end of following May. The fund grew 8.2% if looking from end of June to end of Jun.

So, if you had £50,000 invested on 01 Jun 2013, the value would have increased by 4.31% to £52,155 at 31 May 2014. If I was investing in a SIPP with Vanguard then the OCF is 0.22% so the annual charge would be 0.22% of £50,000 which is £110. If I was investing with say HL then I would also pay the extra 0.45% platform charge on the £50,000 which is £225.00

Thanks for your help.

HappyHarry

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Are they minus figure, or just a confusing use of a - as a seperatot?

They are minus figures. Sorry if not clear - will amend.

johnlucas2018

Sorry, just seen the new posts. I think I get this. Discrete year on year performance so it is an increase each year.

Vanguard
01 Jun 2013 to 31 May 2014 = 4.31% (so £50,000 increases to £52,155)
01 Jun 2014 to 31 May 2015 = 11.34% (so £52,155 increases to £58,069)

HL
29/06/13 - 29/06/14 = 8.2% (so £50,000 increases to £54,100)
29/06/14 - 29/06/15 = 7.05% (so £54,100 increases to £57,914)

Sorry for being so stupid but just want to be sure I am looking at performance correctly. In 2015, vanguard 0.74% against HL 8.93% based on a month later appeared a little different.

Thanks