What % of your portfolio are active vs passive funds?

keyboardworrier

Alexland wrote: »

I didn't realise that any MSEers were still with Orbis. After earning £500 in bonuses we moved our money out. Thankfully the excellent returns we achieved initially covered the later underperformance so we still transferred out in profit. We even moved the JISA out despite it being in fee free units until age 18 and that money is now in a VTR fund.

Alex

I like their fee structure, if it wasn't for that I would have left too. I will give them a chance for a few years, they are contrarian investors so periods of underperformance are expected

iglad

100% active here

fudgecat

100% passive

to_jackie_too

I just sold a lot of equities in the last week (to raise money for a house purchase), which has made me more passive, because of what I chose to sell. So before last week i had 36% passive, 15% active, 49% direct (i.e. individual companies); and now i have 47% passive, 9% active, 44% direct.

Is this a passive way to become more passive, because I did it without actually buying any more passive investments? Or an active way, because I took an active decision about what to sell?

The above is for S&S ISA + unwrapped equities, i.e. it excludes my SIPP, which I think of as a separate portfolio. The SIPP is (still) 90% passive, 10% active.

bostonerimus

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

I have looked at the cumulative performance of the funds he has picked for us over the last 5 years and some have done better than the VLS60, some do a bit worse but are more conservative and some have done a lot better as of course they are not like for like and the percentages allocated to each fund are different than sticking the whole lot in VLS60. They seem to match our risk profile though with the whole lot being overall in a moderate to cautious portfolio whereas the VLS60 is not really that cautious. There is also a percentage in a UK property feeder account (commercial not residential) which of course the VLS60 does not invest in so it is definitely taking the portfolio in a different direction.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to come up with a portfolio that beats VLS60 in the past....it's doing it in the future that matters. If employing an IFA let's you sleep better at night then that's a good thing, but don't become complacent, keep an eye on what your IFA is doing, check the portfolio's performance and make sure the IFA is earning their fee.

andy001

Nice thread! I’m keen for passive. Unsure regarding what would happen to vanguard LS funds with U.K. bias if U.K. leaves without a deal..
What would one suggest- to safeguard the vanguard LS funds ? Could one add ex -U.K. funds via vanguard? Or any other suggestions?
Thanks Andy :money::beer:

shinytop

Currently setting things up but it will be about 80/20 passive/active. The 80 gets me average, the 20 is a gamble that I can afford to lose (although hopefully not all of it!).

AnotherJoe

andy001 wrote: »

Nice thread! I’m keen for passive. Unsure regarding what would happen to vanguard LS funds with U.K. bias if U.K. leaves without a deal..
What would one suggest- to safeguard the vanguard LS funds ? Could one add ex -U.K. funds via vanguard? Or any other suggestions?
Thanks Andy :money::beer:

The vanguard LS funds don't really have a UK bias*. Whilst they are notionally U.K. companies they are in reality massive multi nationals that happen to be HQ'd here. So if Brexit caused a fall in the pound, since these companies get most of their revenue from US dollars and other non Sterling currencies, their shares would rise in value and so would the vanguard funds . The opposite of your fears, perhaps you should be worried about a "good" Brexit.

*The actual "real" concentration is into the handful of industries that make up the top of the FTSE100, pharma, oil and financials mostly.

Cactus_Jack

100% passive:

80% Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap
20% Vanguard US Equity Fund

aroominyork

A question I've put once or twice before but not had a reply to: the reason often given for investing in index funds is that 9 out of 10 active fund managers fail to beat the market, so 9 times out of 10 you will do better with index funds. But those 9 failing funds will include many with small levels of AUM, often under £100m. So my question is how much of the money invested in actively managed funds is in funds which beat the market? That would surely give a better indication of the odds of the average active investor beating a passive strategy.