Pension Investment Strategy

AnotherJoe

Its a dice roll Pip Boy (which fits your user name )

How about ?

Global Equity Ex UK - 75%
UK Equity - 10%
Emerging Markets - 15%
Balance it with what feels right to you. 25% concentrated in the industries that you get by accident with UK doesnt sit right me me which is why I'm not a fan of VLS.

And theres nothing scientific about that, the neat numbers should be a clue, if there was science to it it might be global-ex UK 78.43%, UK equity 7.37% and so on

Pip_Boy_111

[/QUOTE]Its a dice roll Pip Boy (which fits your user name )

How about ?

Global Equity Ex UK - 75%
UK Equity - 10%
Emerging Markets - 15%
Balance it with what feels right to you. 25% concentrated in the industries that you get by accident with UK doesnt sit right me me which is why I'm not a fan of VLS.

And theres nothing scientific about that, the neat numbers should be a clue, if there was science to it it might be global-ex UK 78.43%, UK equity 7.37% and so on [/QUOTE]



I was thinking of putting more into the EM fund actually. Don't know if it's right but I reasoned if one is mostly US equities and one has a large Chinese investment, then surely that covers both sides of the coin. (I know it's not that simple, I'm being flippant before anyone explains it all :rotfl:)

I'm in a bit of conflict with myself. Do i push it to 20% EM? The risk taker in me wants to.

billy2shots

I have my sipp invested in what I think you’re trying to achieve.

Developed world ex uk 82.5%
UK 250 7.5%
Emerging Markets 10%

That is about as balanced as I could get based on the world’s equity balance (and my risk tolerance).

The reason the UK250 is so important is because those uk companies (the 250 under the big 100) do a majority of their trade in the uk. A uk Ftse 100 or All Share (dominated by the largest 100 companies) will earn a lot of money from EM themselves.

In my uneducated mind FTSE100 or All share (350) funds will add to EM exposure upping the equity share in that area. Keeping things completely separate is the truest way to diversify geographic equity in my opinion.

Pip_Boy_111

billy2shots wrote: »

I have my sipp invested in what I think you’re trying to achieve.

Developed world ex uk 82.5%
UK 250 7.5%
Emerging Markets 10%

That is about as balanced as I could get based on the world’s equity balance (and my risk tolerance).

The reason the UK250 is so important is because those uk companies (the 250 under the big 100) do a majority of their trade in the uk. A uk Ftse 100 or All Share (dominated by the largest 100 companies) will earn a lot of money from EM themselves.

In my uneducated mind FTSE100 or All share (350) funds will add to EM exposure upping the equity share in that area. Keeping things completely separate is the truest way to diversify geographic equity in my opinion.

Unfortunately the only UK fund offered by my company provider is made up almost exactly as Another Joe mentioned earlier (shell, bp, hsbc etc.) so I don't have the option of a UK250 investment. Muddies the water a touch with regards to achieving the balance you speak of. I'm set on the 3 funds to invest in (not too much choice anyway) it's just the split. I'm erring on the side of:

Global ex uk - 75%
EM - 15%
Uk - 10%

billy2shots

In that case I would probably lower the EM down a bit to 10% at most and stick the difference in global.
Obviously we all have our own ideas but if balance is what you are aiming for that would make more sense (from my perspective anyway)

cogito

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I think you'll find that putting 25% in "the U.K." is harder than you envisage. You'll likely find you end up with huge multinationals that are nominally HQ'd here but the bulk of whose revenue is overseas and might as well be global.

That's exactly the reason why I think that trying to invest regionally is utterly pointless.

You decide you want exposure to Switzerland so you buy Nestl!. What you get is a company registered in a country which is only its 16th largest market and accounts for less than 2% of its sales. In terms of sales, nearly half is in North America.

Or Unilever. It owns hundreds if not thousands of small business throughout the world and in some respects can be likened to a global fund investing in small caps.

Pip_Boy_111

Well in the end I went with:
Global ex uk - 80%
Uk - 10%
EM - 10%

Both of my dc pots (active and ex employer) are now set up this way. Taken on board all the comments from everyone here and want to thank everyone for taking the time to look.
Now to pray to the investing gods for a healthy 25 years of growth :rotfl:

ex-pat_scot

Good stuff.
You can over think these things.
Resist the temptation to tinker.
Investments, and pensions, grow best when not monitored and managed.
Check every 6 months.
Rebalance if you think you must.

Keep validating your assumptions. Read. Reflect. Be very cautious of trading, as this will seriously erode via fees.
Monitor costs/fees.

Pip_Boy_111

ex-pat_scot wrote: »

Good stuff.
You can over think these things.
Resist the temptation to tinker.
Investments, and pensions, grow best when not monitored and managed.
Check every 6 months.
Rebalance if you think you must.

Keep validating your assumptions. Read. Reflect. Be very cautious of trading, as this will seriously erode via fees.
Monitor costs/fees.

Thanks Ex-pat scot.

Yeah, i guess from the start of this thread to now, the biggest message seems to be, "you're overthinking this". As i say, i have a limited number of funds to choose from with our works scheme, so in the grand scheme of it, it became a simple enough choice. How much in equities? - 100%. Ok, so which equities? - there's really only 3 to choose from. Great, what percentage of each? - see above.

As you say. Need to now resist the temptation to check it everyday for the next 25 years