New to funds, got some questions

A_T

AlanP wrote: »

Is this investment going to be in a Pension or an ISA wrapper?

Just wondering as you mentioned time until retirement.

HSBC Global Strategy, Blackrock Consensus and the L&G Multi Asset ranges are possible alternatives to VLS if you want a choice of asset types within your "one stop shop".

Fidelity Multi Asset Allocator series also worth a look

aroominyork

A_T wrote: »

If you're going to use Vanguard I'd go with their FTSE Global All Cap Index fund - total cost (including transactions) is 0.39% compared to VLS100 at 0.45% - and also no UK-listed bias.

Two better ways to phrase the fund allocation issue:

"If I was going to use Vanguard I'd go with their FTSE Global All Cap Index fund – no UK-listed bias."

"If you're going to use Vanguard you should consider if you want a UK bias."

I'm not being intentionally picky, but suggesting a fund based on your own preference isn't helpful.

DrSyn

Rawhy

As you have expressed interest in a multi asset fund, the post below may be of interest to you:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5879942/multi-asset-funds-differences&highlight=multi+asset

Albermarle

I'm currently contributing the maximum amount (10%) in my company work place pension (so that's 10% matched by my company). Now witht the rest of my money, I'm not sure if an ISA or a personal pension is the way to go.

Although your workplace pension /employer has a cap on regular salary contribution , it is probably possible to make separate personal contributions to it . Sometimes increasing contributions to your workplace pension is better and simpler than starting a separate pension. It depends to some extent on the charging structure and what variety of funds your workplace pension offers.
Regarding pension vs ISA : It depends on your age, personal circumstances and salary level.
The pension benefits from tax relief but the money is tied up until at least age 55.
The usual advice is that if you are a higher rate taxpayer then the pension is better due to the tax relief which is very generous .

Rawhy

Thank you all for your input, it has been immensely useful. I noticed that there are two Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund, Income and Accumulation:

https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/investments/vanguard-ftse-global-all-cap-index-fund-gbp-income-shares

https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/investments/vanguard-ftse-global-all-cap-index-fund-gbp-accumulation-shares

My understanding is this: "An income unit will distribute any interest or dividend income from the fund directly to you. ... An accumulation unit on the other hand, is designed to offer you growth in the fund rather than income, so any income generated will be reinvested within the fund, raising the value of your investment."

But I also thought that I would be able to switch between the two classes easily (i.e. without selling my fund and buying the other, since it's essentially the same fund), if this is the case, then why do the two classes have different NAV values?

My aim is to accumulate to the value of 400-500k, then start using the dividend as income paid to me, is this possible with a click of a button? Sort of like "What would you like to do with your dividend, reinvest or take it out?"

Also, what does ex-UK mean in the names of some Vanguard funds?

Thank you all.

eskbanker

Rawhy wrote: »

But I also thought that I would be able to switch between the two classes easily (i.e. without selling my fund and buying the other, since it's essentially the same fund), if this is the case, then why do the two classes have different NAV values?

If you have Acc units and want Inc ones then it is a sale and purchase, at different unit prices as you've spotted.

Rawhy wrote: »

Also, what does ex-UK mean in the names of some Vanguard funds?

Excluding UK, i.e. invested in non-UK markets.

AnotherJoe

Rawhy wrote: »

My aim is to accumulate to the value of 400-500k, then start using the dividend as income paid to me, is this possible with a click of a button? Sort of like "What would you like to do with your dividend, reinvest or take it out?"

Yes its very possible but most likely a poor / flawed strategy. I think its well understood now that you get a better total return (and thats what drives income ultimately) by a combination of taking income and selling units rather than just taking income.

Mostly because to rely on income means you are omitting some growth stocks whose overall performance is better than ones that have higher income but less growth.


But the good news is you've got 20 years to look into the details on that.

Rawhy

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Yes its very possible but most likely a poor / flawed strategy. I think its well understood now that you get a better total return (and thats what drives income ultimately) by a combination of taking income and selling units rather than just taking income.

So by that, do you mean once I sell my acc. funds, I only use, say, 50% of the money to buy income and keep the other 50% to use? Sorry, I'm a bit confused by "by a combination of taking income and selling units".

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Mostly because to rely on income means you are omitting some growth stocks whose overall performance is better than ones that have higher income but less growth.

Oh, now I think you mean to buy both acc. and income funds, but to swap one for the other over time. Is that what you mean by "selling unist". Hmmm, are the stocks in the two funds different? Otherwise I don't know what you mean by:

AnotherJoe wrote: »

omitting some growth stocks whose overall performance is better than ones that have higher income but less growth

Both the income and acc. version of the fund is following the same index, how can they be different?

toothdoctor

Yes I was recently caught out. Relatively new to investing and thought I had invested in a fee free product (fee free due to promotion on offer). Although the product fee /ongoing charge is free there was a 'transactional cost' to pay. Nowhere in the fact sheet does it mention these charges. I think this is totally wrong and needs addressing.

A_T

toothdoctor wrote: »

Yes I was recently caught out. Relatively new to investing and thought I had invested in a fee free product (fee free due to promotion on offer). Although the product fee /ongoing charge is free there was a 'transactional cost' to pay. Nowhere in the fact sheet does it mention these charges. I think this is totally wrong and needs addressing.

can you provide a link to the fact sheet?