Vanguard Funds

Novice_investor101

i check my LISA and S/S ISA every couple of days at the minute. I'm due a lump sum of overtime pay tomorrow which i'll be chucking straight into my SS ISA - i started it in March 2017 so most of the buys have been at high unit prices. I'm hoping to temper that a bit with buying in now.

I've another lump sum coming my way for my birthday in a couple of weeks, so i'll be chucking that into it as well. My usual regular contributions will continue as normal.

The only change i've made is to my LISA. It is all invested in L&G International index fund, and i've today changed the regular investment to pay into Vanguard FTSE Global all cap Acc as i wanted to have a fund that included a small amount of UK.
The L&G fund is still actually in a small plus (i bought into it in Feb at the last drop), so i may sell that to buy into the Vanguard, or i may not. I don't really tend to pay much attention to the LISA - it's to remain untouched for another 23 years.

short_butt_sweet

kidmugsy wrote: »

I'm all for market timing. If equities are far too high, get out. The problem at the moment is that almost everything else looks high too. At least in late 1999 the clever cookies could buy gilts at reasonable prices.

the way i look at it is that, logically, not everything can be too high at the same time. because assets are priced relative to one another.

for instance, if i think that shell shares are too expensive at a price of about £25, i.e. they're not worth £25 of cash; i can't also think that cash is too expensive at a price of 1 shell share. i may think it's better value to be holding £25 cash than 1 shell share, or vice versa, or that they're about equally good value. but those are the only logical positions to take.

it's the same when you bring in more possible assets. i may think it's better value to be holding £25 than to be holding $32, or that $32 is better value, or think there's little to choose between those options.

and i may think 1 shell share is better value than 1/7 of an apple share, or vice versa. and that either of those shares is better (or worse) value than cash (in £ or $). and so on. you get the idea.

just saying everything is expensive isn't meaningful, because the value of every asset is measured against the value of every other asset.

tl;dr: stop whingeing!

Small sums could go into high-interest accounts - so at least your emergency cash would currently beat inflation. But big retirement "pots" - tricky. An ETF of TIPS to dilute equity holdings?

Perhaps people of 55 or over would be wise to take some TFLS and clear mortgage debt? Buy Premium Bonds? Use savings accounts even if most won't keep up with inflation? Buy gold sovereigns?

you seem to be panicking here. (though perhaps only as a game when posting, not in reality.)

there is no magic asset class to look for (that gives you high returns at low risk).

however, if you're saying that a mixture of different asset classes often works best, then you're quite right. some equities (higher risk, higher return), and some cash (lower risk, lower return). premium bonds are fine, but are just a variant on cash, not a separate class.

TIPS or gold sovereigns? a little in them could be OK, but they are relatively niche asset types. don't overdo the obscure stuff. mostly you should be in the basic asset classes, which include bonds in general, of which TIPS are a rather specific type.

MK62

It's not a zero sum game though, the market isn't a fixed size with every asset jockeying for share......they can all rise and fall at the same time, so for one asset to rise it doesn't require another to fall.

short_butt_sweet

Manesova83 wrote: »

I never said that the past was a stable, predictable place. All I am saying is that there are several seemingly insurmountable problems that will probably come to a head during this century. These are bound to affect future growth and the very financial system itself.

People always say that historically, the market has always rebounded stronger - and they are right. But historically, all systems and empires rise and fall, so it is a matter of time until the current order of things collapses and is replaced by something else. In my mind, it seems fairly likely that this could happen during this century - something that may not bother older investors too much, but certainly should bother younger ones.

Apologies if I've gone off on a tangent. I merely wanted to know if people consider the pressing issues facing the human race when they talk about the market being a safe bet in the long term, and especially when talking about distant retirement..

i think the one real issue is climate chaos. politics and wars frequently panic the markets in the short-term, but have little longer-term effect.

the best scenario is that oil & gas stocks take a big hit when it becomes clear that we will do the sane thing, and leave most of the reserves already discovered in the ground.

but as AlanP said, there will also be companies who profit from how we mitigate climate change.

and overall, should we expect returns from equities to be a bit lower? probably; but then they vary a lot from one multi-decade period to the next, so does it make much difference to our expectations?

where is gets worse is if we keep on postponing the more radical climate mitigation that's needed, and act as if we can burn all the oil & gas. because the net costs of mitigation (or of unmitigated climate chaos) will rise, the longer we keep postponing action. though i'm still not sure how that changes how we should invest (except for perhaps being a bit more pessimistic).

short_butt_sweet

MK62 wrote: »

It's not a zero sum game though, the market isn't a fixed size with every asset jockeying for share......they can all rise and fall at the same time, so for one asset to rise it doesn't require another to fall.

no, because cash is an asset class, too.

when you say they can all rise, what you are really saying is that they can all rise relative to cash, and that (therefore) cash can fall relative to everything else.

or if they "all fall", that actually means they all fall relative to cash, and that cash rises.

so my point is: if you think everything except cash is expensive, you should be happy to be holding cash.

but it doesn't make much sense to say that everything including cash is expensive.

dunstonh

thickasabrick wrote: »

You have piqued my curiosity with this statement.




What are the consequences of having a non uk domiciled investment in the event of a no deal regarding financial services with Brexit ?

I've recently been purchasing Vanguard FTSE All-World High Dividend Yield UCITS ETF (GBP) (VHYL). It is domiciled in Ireland but the ETF is trading on the London stock exchange, if my understanding of the terms is correct.

I haven't read the specifics of the warning yet beyond a few bullet points in a speed read but it as mainly to do with FSCS protection likely to end and potential trading suspensions due to lack of passporting permissions and payment systems

Basically, it was an early heads up that there could be issues on a no deal and we may need to put resources into dealing with them.

Audaxer

bostonerimus wrote: »

Yes I'll have to settle for retiring at age 52 with a multi-million dollar portfolio and never having to worry about money again.

Gosh bostonerimus, I knew your 3 fund portfolio had served you well, but I didn't realise it grown to these levels. Just out of interest, what percentage of your wealth do you hold in cash savings?

bostonerimus

Audaxer wrote: »

Gosh bostonerimus, I knew your 3 fund portfolio had served you well, but I didn't realise it grown to these levels. Just out of interest, what percentage of your wealth do you hold in cash savings?

My portfolio is at a level where I don't need to worry about money anymore, but it got there with a combination of good growth (about 8.5% average per year), doing it for 30 years and aggressive saving over that time. I earned far more that I spent and compulsively put the excess away for a rainy day.

I keep a couple of years spending in easily accessible cash which is about 2% of my portfolio. There's another couple of percent inside my DC pension pot in investments that guarantee principal and pay around 3% interest.

tel_

Manesova83 wrote: »

People always say that historically, the market has always rebounded stronger - and they are right.

Surely markets will always get stronger over long periods of time, due to the continuation of the rising world population, and the demands to provide more jobs, accommodation, transport etc, the world-over.

Am I correct or just talking nonsense?

Some might say it's called 'progress'.

Zero_Sum

Anyway sort of back to the start, as someone else who has just started with these a few months back......
...whats the situation with dividends?
If for example I have money in VSL60 & the dividends are reinvested, when they are paid do Ireceive extra stock units or is it just rolled in with the price & it just goes up a bit more? And if the former, when are they paid?