Is 'Vanguard LifeStrategy' enough in your portfolio?

[Deleted User]

Prism wrote: »

Don't overly worry about the differences between the Vanguard approach and some of those other risk targeted approach. You can't really go wrong with either. Impossible to know if the static percentage split of VLS is better than the floating splits of something like the HSBC range. Buy both if you can't decide.

Have to disagree. Pick one or the other. Stick to it.

Prism

Deleted_User wrote: »

Have to disagree. Pick one or the other. Stick to it.

It makes no difference unless the platform charges more to buy 2 funds than 1. If you can't decide then why not try both

[Deleted User]

Prism wrote: »

It makes no difference unless the platform charges more to buy 2 funds than 1. If you can't decide then why not try both

Because it adds unnecessary complexity and shows lack of policy/strategy.

Prism

Deleted_User wrote: »

Because it adds unnecessary complexity and shows lack of policy/strategy.

I would hardly call a 50/50 split between global passive funds complex. By its nature this kind of investing doesn't exactly have a strategy except for make money with an acceptable amount of risk. No need to worry about making a decision about very similar funds when it makes very little difference what decision you make. Personally I would pick one too, but I can't see any issue in having more than one if someone is unsure.

For what its worth my choice would likely be HSBC but take that with a pinch of salt as I don't invest in any of the multi asset funds.

bostonerimus

dunstonh wrote: »

The decision to hold x% in US equity is a management decision. The decision to have a home bias is a management decision. The decision not to focus on a target volatility range but use a rigid equity content is a management decision.

Using multiple multi-asset funds with different investment weightings is a management decision. if you thought fund A had the best allocations then why would you want fund B. If you thought fund A didnt have the right allocations then why are you using it in the first place.



Vanguard are not competing with IFAs. They provide no advisory services. Vanguard are also a very large managed fund house and they actually consider active management to be viable. They have just chosen not to launch their managed funds in the UK yet.

Vanguard do offer some active funds in the UK.

In the US they have far more funds and their Wellesley and Wellington funds are two of the oldest managed multi-asset funds. They also provide advise in the USA.

[Deleted User]

Prism wrote: »

I would hardly call a 50/50 split between global passive funds complex. By its nature this kind of investing doesn't exactly have a strategy except for make money with an acceptable amount of risk. .

I thought HSBC multi-asset funds are active; reviewing allocations every 3 months (?)

Strategy is how we approach the money making process - selecting passive vs active approach, asset allocation, geographic allocation, factors, rules for making changes, rebalancing, etc. Multi-asset products implement it for you, but it’s a strategy. Ideally this is a conscious decision rather than “I like the name”.

Mixing different products makes sense to achieve diversification. Mixing two types of multi asset porridges for the sake of mixing at no diversification benefit is relatively harmless but utterly useless and shows that decision isn’t well informed. Chances are this individual won’t be able to stick with the strategy of neither here nor there, and that’s when performance will be hurt.

JustAnotherSaver

Deleted_User wrote: »

About LifeStrategy being “managed”? Like post 18 says, it’s irrelevant. Everything is “managed”. The point is that it’s not ACTIVELY managed. LifeStrategy = a bunch of passive investments covering the world with fixed allocation to various markets. Except for the home market, allocations represent market cap. If you had bonds in your fund, it would be a fixed allocation too, again passive.

Which goes back to my earlier point - you can read all the books in the world (which goes against those people who essentially say you can't be bothered to learn) but if you don't understand them fully then you simply don't understand them. Take this for example - the simple addition of the word active that i'd just really missed. There'll be other cases of my misunderstanding too.



It's easy to look back on it when it's pointed out & you're left feeling stupid - like oh of course that's how it is, how did i even not spot that, but fact is little things do get missed & little things can make a difference. Doesn't mean i'm not trying though.

[Deleted User]

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Which goes back to my earlier point - you can read all the books in the world (which goes against those people who essentially say you can't be bothered to learn) but if you don't understand them fully then you simply don't understand them. Take this for example - the simple addition of the word active that i'd just really missed. There'll be other cases of my misunderstanding too.

Sorry; I had assumed you were not sufficiently interested in your family’s future prosperity to invest time into educating yourself. I was wrong and I apologise.

A question to old hats on this forum - is there a recommended literature list and a wiki for people starting to familiarize themselves with investments and pensions? Something like this?

https://www.finiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.finiki.org/wiki/Recommended_reading
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Outline_of_ETFs_and_mutual_funds

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User wrote: »

Vanguard’s founder was the man behind passive cap weighted investment strategy (John Bogle). They upended Mutual fund industry and drove the costs down. They are doing the same to the IFA industry which is ripe for it. Vanguard US is a non-profit, is owned by investors which constantly strives to minimise cost.

Smoke and mirrors. Do Vanguard disclose what their executives earn? No they don't. Non-profit is a neat marketing spin.

Even John Bogle prior to his death. Questioned the validity of the growth in passive trackers. His concept was built on the US markets. The most researched and analysed in the world. Somewhat different to other markets globally. Without active investors who sets the value of a company and therefore it's share price?

[Deleted User]

Gee... I see you have a problem with facts AND Vanguard. “Non-profit” isn’t spin. “Non-profit” means the company can’t make profit.

P.S. in the Vanguards case the company is owned by mutual fund investors and any profit is returned to these funds and their owners.