My sipp portfolio

AnotherJoe

whatsup7 wrote: »

For info I am a 4-5 out of 10 on the risk scale

So, take a look at what happened to property funds in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.

Not only did they crater but many actually put measures in place to stop people selling and those locks remained there for months.
Now, a fair bit of that risk will be priced in already, but all sorts of stuff can still happen with Brexit, so i would say that UK-only property probably ranks at 8 or 9 on a risk scale currently.
I wonder what Dunston would say, if i was an adviser i would steer well clear of UK specific property funds with medium to low risk investors. heck I'm a very high risk investor and I woudlnt touch such a fund !

cogito

The problem with property funds is their illiquidity and the need to hold a lot of cash to meet redemptions. I got stuck in one such fund a few years ago and since then have used REITs. They make up about 10% of my overall portfolio.

whatsup7

AnotherJoe wrote: »

So, take a look at what happened to property funds in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.

Not only did they crater but many actually put measures in place to stop people selling and those locks remained there for months.
Now, a fair bit of that risk will be priced in already, but all sorts of stuff can still happen with Brexit, so i would say that UK-only brexit probably ranks at 8 or 9 on a risk scale currently.
I wonder what Dunston would say, if i was an adviser i would steer well clear of UK specific property funds with medium to low risk investors. heck I'm a very high risk investor and I woudlnt touch such a fund !

The total of my funds id £400000
So it cost me £5000 just to buy them, I said to him I din`t realise the spread was so big and they would have to go up a lot just to standstill.
So I left him.
No do I reduce the holding, I think I will have to as it just seems too high a percentage.

AnotherJoe

I would cut my losses and bail entirely. Why hang on to half a turd?

bostonerimus

Property does seem a bit high and there's an lot of overlap on the multi-asset funds.

AnotherJoe

whatsup7 wrote: »

The other funds I have are
f and c mgmt lifestyle cautious b net acc
l and g multi index 5
standard life inv myfolio mgd III platform 1

I've just had a quick look at those. To my possibly untutored eye, and admittedly on a skim, it seems like a mish mash set of funds of funds, goodness knows how much there is in common between all that lot, and I wouldnt be surprised if it all together equated to something like VLS40 but with a lot more cost (since each of the constituent funds have their own management fees)

It might be interesting for you to do a comparison over say the past 5 years across those 3 and VLS40. I'm going to guess VLS40 will win hands down merely because of lower costs.

dunstonh

I wonder what Dunston would say, if i was an adviser i would steer well clear of UK specific property funds with medium to low risk investors. heck I'm a very high risk investor and I woudlnt touch such a fund !

I think the spread is crap.

I don't mind some UK bricks and mortar property. Although I think the largest allocation on our portfolios is 7% currently. If it was property share, I would go global over UK but not concerned about bricks and mortar versions.

However, mixing multi-asset fund single sector funds isnt a favourite of mine. (remember what I said about opinions - this is just mine).

The total of my funds id £400000

At that level, I would have the person on a bespoke portfolio of single sector funds. I would only use multi-asset if the person was low knowledge/understanding. Or if it was a transactional client (one-off advice). We wont use single sector funds for one-off advice.

Linton

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I've just had a quick look at those. To my possibly untutored eye, and admittedly on a skim, it seems like a mish mash set of funds of funds, goodness knows how much there is in common between all that lot, and I wouldnt be surprised if it all together equated to something like VLS40 but with a lot more cost (since each of the constituent funds have their own management fees)

It might be interesting for you to do a comparison over say the past 5 years across those 3 and VLS40. I'm going to guess VLS40 will win hands down merely because of lower costs.

Trustnet tells me hat a portfolio of the a portfolio of the 3 funds held in equal amounts would have increased by 40.0% over 5 years compared with VLS40's 40.8%. VLS40 has a trustnet risk score of 45% compared with the portfolios risk score o0f 48%.


So VLS40 wins but its not a hands down win.


But of course one doesnt buy a portfolio like this to maximise performance.

whatsup7

dunstonh wrote: »

However, mixing multi-asset fund single sector funds isnt a favourite of mine. (remember what I said about opinions - this is just mine).



At that level, I would have the person on a bespoke portfolio of single sector funds. I would only use multi-asset if the person was low knowledge/understanding. Or if it was a transactional client (one-off advice). We wont use single sector funds for one-off advice.

Before I went to this guy I had a nice spread of single funds and he sold them all and bought these, these were probably a lot easier to run for him
Looks like it is going to cost me a fair bit to put this right

cjking

I've always liked unit-linked property funds, though I don't hold any at the moment, and they aren't an option in my SIPP. The return you get relative to volatility is better than anything else, or at least it was several years ago when I last looked.

The 5% initial cost would be very high for any other type of fund, but for property funds that is a typical spread because of the high transaction costs involved in buying and selling. Assuming the ongoing costs are low, I would keep that holding forever. (i.e keep it as 25% of my portfolio during drawdown.)