What % of your portfolio are active vs passive funds?

Audaxer

Aminatidi wrote: »

Being blunt I think they originated as being somewhere for the wealthy to keep a large amount of their assets.

Yes, I've heard of them being classed as Wealth Preservation funds, but I thought most maybe held a few of these type of funds as a Wealth Preservation portfolio, or maybe as a defensive part of growth portfolio instead of bonds?

Aminatidi

Audaxer wrote: »

Yes, I've heard of them being classed as Wealth Preservation funds, but I thought most maybe held a few of these type of funds as a Wealth Preservation portfolio, or maybe as a defensive part of growth portfolio instead of bonds?

I'm sure there will be a mix.

My guess (and sadly it's only a guess as I'm not there yet!) is that if you end up with a few million quid tucked away in PNL or CGT you probably don't ask what do do about asset allocation on forums

Personally I have around 50% across those three as "cautious but flexible" management.

bostonerimus

For most of my working life I just stuck my money into a 60/40 global equity and domestic bond index portfolio. I rebalanced through the ups and downs so my active management was reactive to just keep my allocation constant. Doing that for around 25 years I averaged 8.5% annual growth. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that.

aroominyork

bostonerimus wrote: »

For most of my working life I just stuck my money into a 60/40 global equity and domestic bond index portfolio. I rebalanced through the ups and downs so my active management was reactive to just keep my allocation constant. Doing that for around 25 years I averaged 8.5% annual growth. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that.

If you were 25 years from accessing your funds why 40% bonds? Why not 100% equities and ride out the bumps?

A_T

Aminatidi wrote: »

Hmm well they're very much pitched as "one stop shops" where people can park all or a significant amount of their wealth.

I guess it comes down to what "other investments" count as, but I'd be reasonably sure there are people for whom those are their only fund/investment trust holdings.

Being blunt I think they originated as being somewhere for the wealthy to keep a large amount of their assets.

I think that's exactly right - they're for folk who don't look at their investments very often. Just stick the lot in Trojan and forget.

Aminatidi

aroominyork wrote: »

If you were 25 years from accessing your funds why 40% bonds? Why not 100% equities and ride out the bumps?

Can't speak for everyone but because it looks lovely on the graphs but isn't so easy to do when you're looking at a huge chunk of your life savings gone.

Psychology trumps maths for many people (I include myself in that).

stphnstevey

Linton wrote: »

I amnot talking about niche high growth investing which encourages risk but rather about fairly general funds and corresponding indexes where the manager has the opportunity and the incentive to avoid higher risk. A good example is Woodfords Invesco Income in the period October 2007-March 2009:


FTSE 100: -38%
IUKD (UK dividend tracker):-55%
Invesco Income: -30%


or avoiding Woodford and looking at non income funds we have:
Fidelity UK Select:-32%
M&G UK Select: -31%

Well you mentioned the niche originally

You could probably find as many funds that underperform an index than outperform, that's why they are the index. Finding the ones that out perform is difficult, needle in haystack times, often shear luck. That's added risk, you don't necessarily need. Rather than try to pick one that beats the market, be the market

quirkydeptless

A_T wrote: »

I think that's exactly right - they're for folk who don't look at their investments very often. Just stick the lot in Trojan and forget.

I wouldn't like all my investments in one place in case it did a Woodford :undecided

iglad

Research is the key along with regular monitoring as for Axa Framlington it appears to be motoring along nicely as I'm getting 12% return since March. My active funds are doing nicely.

iglad

My own view is that investments should only account for about 1/3 of your overall assets and this coming from a person who had 100% in funds and no cash in 2018. However as I'm a old geezer I could not take all my assets being in one place and I must admit I do sleep a lot easier at night. lol