Investment Platform Charges

A_T

ColdIron wrote: »

You would need to reconcile yourself to having no UK exposure at all as it tracks the FTSE World (ex UK) Index

I do not see as a problem. The FTSE World (ex UK) Index performs almost exactly the same as the All World Index.

A_T

Alexland wrote: »

I figured for an extra 0.02% that I would prefer the 46% US exposure in the Blackrock fund over the 60% US exposure in the L&G fund.

Alex

That's fine if you think you're knowledgeable enough to make a decision that you know better than the market.

Alexland

A_T wrote: »

That's fine if you think you're knowledgeable enough to make a decision that you know better than the market.

'The market' is not telling you to put 60% in the US or buy this L&G fund which has made allocation decisions such as to specifically exclude UK. There are lots of ways of looking at global markets and it is impossible to avoid allocation decisions. My preference is the FTSE All World index so hold the HSBC tracker in my SIPP. Consensus 100 is similar enough so for a fees advantage I hold it in our HL LISAs.

Alex

A_T

Alexland wrote: »

'The market' is not telling you to put 60% in the US or buy this L&G fund which has made allocation decisions such as to specifically exclude UK. There are lots of ways of looking at global markets and it is impossible to avoid allocation decisions. My preference is the FTSE All World index so hold the HSBC tracker in my SIPP. Consensus 100 is similar enough so for a fees advantage I hold it in our HL LISAs.

Alex

L&G haven't made any decisions re. this fund. It tracks an index.

Consensus 100 has performed differently to a world index tracker. FTSE All World, MSCI World or the FTSE World (ex UK) Index trackers have performed almost exactly the same over the period when data is available - that's because it's holdings are very similar.

Blackrock's decision how to weight the Consensus 100 fund would have cost you 2% per annum over the last 5 years if you'd chosen it over a fund that tracks the indexes mentioned above. That's far more significant than nit-picking over the odd 0.1% here or there.

Alexland

A_T wrote: »

L&G haven't made any decisions re. this fund. It tracks an index.

Ok if we are now nit-picking the allocation decisions are in the index not the fund.

A_T wrote: »

Consensus 100 has performed differently to a world index tracker. FTSE All World, MSCI World or the FTSE World (ex UK) Index trackers have performed almost exactly the same over the period when data is available - that's because it's holdings are very similar.

Blackrock's decision how to weight the Consensus 100 fund would have cost you 2% per annum over the last 5 years if you'd chosen it over a fund that tracks the indexes mentioned above. That's far more significant than nit-picking over the odd 0.1% here or there.

Comparing the Consensus 100 to the Vanguard FTSE All World ETF on YouInvest (where they both have similar ongoing charges) the 5 year annualised return is 10.58% and 11.74% respectively so yes the Consensus 100 has suffered a bit (probably from home bias with UK stocks now looking better value) but it's not really fair to compare to a World find when the US has done so well in recent years and now on such high valuations.

Alex

MK62

Blackrock's Consensus range of funds are risk targetted......so, in the case of the Consensus 100 fund, it means the fund can contain up to 100% equities - it doesn't mean it will always contain 100% though (unlike some global tracker funds).

Likewise with the other funds in the Consensus range.....the number (85,70 etc) indicates the maximum level of equity assets in the fund - but it's an "up to" figure rather than fixed.