Forum Home» Pensions, Annuities & Retirement Planning

Views on Royal London Governed Portfolio - Page 11

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Views on Royal London Governed Portfolio

110 replies 9.8K views
15678911»

Replies

  • Mordko wrote: »
    Fact is something that is proven to be true. Which of my comments are “factually incorrect”? Who proved it? Be specific.

    The OP (and you) should make your own choices as everyone here is expressing an opinion. People learn from a discussion. And I understand the emotive need to believe that you made the right choice but attacking someone with a different view as having “little knowledge” and spewing “utter nonsense” is a personal attack and anything but”fact”.


    I did have a Royal London pension, as it was incredibly cheap and the performance was Quartile 1/2 for a decade.


    As it goes, I transferred it about 9 months ago to a more expensive but better performing pension/fund. But that is my ability to know what is a good pension fund and ongoing performance.


    As it goes though, I still rate Royal London Pensions (invested in Governed Portfolio funds) as being more than just 'value for money'; they are exceptionally good.


    Low cost, risk rated, re-balanced to ensure the risk remains consistent, multi fund, and in funds that always (so far) have offered above average performance.


    So, in layman's terms: A blooming good pension that is cheap but beats most when it comes to performance and they look after the money by consistently adjusting the mix depending on what is going on in the world, whilst always making sure they are not taking more, or less, risk that I agreed to year after year.


    I think that is all people want to know, not your guff.
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    jonnyh1uk wrote: »
    That is a LOT of words, but it would be more helpful if you could confirm what Royal London Pension fund has ever had a max drawdown of anywhere near 50%?

    Do you even know what their highest risk fund max drawdown is?

    I ask simply to help me and people reading your knowledgeable comments what we should expect. You clearly are an expert in these matters after all.

    I have no idea if historic data on defunct Royal London funds are available. I have never made claims about their historic returns during bear markets. You did about all of them over all times. Would be good of you to provide a reference.

    The funds we are looking at are new. Even a monkey would have achieved great returns since 2009.

    Looking at the history of assets modern RL funds are made up of, easy to see that 50% drawdowns are plausible. But you really don’t need to believe me. Believe what you want.
  • edited 15 December 2019 at 12:43AM
    MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    edited 15 December 2019 at 12:43AM
    I did have a Royal London pension, as it was incredibly cheap and the performance was Quartile 1/2 for a decade.

    The fund we are talking about is in the bottom half over a 5 year period. And they are benchmarking against a more conservative allocation, which seems weird https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/p/j8hz/royal-london-governed-portfolio-5-pn. Also, they are tracking the benchmark very closely, which is suspicious for an active fund.

    Here is RLP managed pension fund. It underperformed category over 10 years. It underperformed index by over 2% annually over 10 years. That’s nothing to brag about.
    https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=VAUSA05TCZ&tab=1&InvestmentType=SA
  • Mordko wrote: »
    I have no idea if historic data on defunct Royal London funds are available. I have never made claims about their historic returns during bear markets. You did about all of them over all times. Would be good of you to provide a reference.

    The funds we are looking at are new. Even a monkey would have achieved great returns since 2009.

    Looking at the history of assets modern RL funds are made up of, easy to see that 50% drawdowns are plausible. But you really don’t need to believe me. Believe what you want.


    As with pretty much every fund, it is difficult to find performance figures that go back more than 5 years; but I have been looking at these 'previous 5 years' figures for more than 5 years and for anyone reading this, I confirm they have always outperformed the average.


    Think of a football league and a team in the Premier who in 15 years have never ended the season beneath the mid table and more often than not are in the top 5 teams. But are cheaper than any team in terms of costs.


    That is all people who are looking at 'is my Royal London Pension any good' need to know.


    So please stop trying to be the big man and move on. It's embarrassing.


    Looking back more than 5 to 10 years is not only pointless, it is simply a waste of time. Disagree? please feel free to invest in a Neil Woodford or Anthony Bolton fund.



    Honestly, please stop digging. I have only come on here because I believe peoples pensions are important and they don't need to be put off by 'bloke down the pub who 'knows' ' complicating things.

    Other people, who clearly knew better than you, tried to make it clear but you just came back with 'cut and paste' replies and I cannot believe I have fallen into the same trap.


    I just hope people can read this thread and not take any notice of what you have (confusingly) said.


    Now, good day to you sir.

    Goo
  • edited 15 December 2019 at 1:12AM
    MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    edited 15 December 2019 at 1:12AM
    This is your claim:
    50% drawdown?

    No Royal London Fund has EVER had this.

    Please provide evidence. Until you do, I will be assuming everything you say is unsupported BS and will ignore you. Bye.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • Mordko wrote: »
    The fund we are talking about is in the bottom half over a 5 year period. And they are benchmarking against a more conservative allocation, which seems weird . Also, they are tracking the benchmark very closely, which is suspicious for an active fund.

    Here is RLP managed pension fund. It underperformed category over 10 years. It underperformed index by over 2% annually over 10 years. That’s nothing to brag about.


    You're doing it again. The fund you have sent links for is one of the more cautious funds, so, whilst it is in the 40-85 Investment Managers Association Sector (min 40% in Equities, max 85% in Equities) the fund only has circa 51% in Equities and therefore should 'under perform' the Sector. The fact it has close correlation to much higher risk funds is something to be applauded. (hence it's 4 out 5 Crown Star rating no doubt).


    But you CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Jeez.


    Anyway, as I said, good day to you sir.
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    Looking back more than 5 to 10 years is not only pointless, it is simply a waste of time. Disagree? please feel free to invest in a Neil Woodford or Anthony Bolton fund.

    I don’t invest in active funds, but here is the thing: you can’t invest in Woodford. However a couple of years ago you could. And 5 year returns were awesome.

    In my opinion, it’s well worth looking far enough back to capture at least a couple of bear markets and understand how an asset allocation could perform and what are potential drawdowns..
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    jonnyh1uk wrote: »
    You're doing it again. The fund you have sent links for is one of the more cautious funds, so, whilst it is in the 40-85 Investment Managers Association Sector (min 40% in Equities, max 85% in Equities) the fund only has circa 51% in Equities and therefore should 'under perform' the Sector. The fact it has close correlation to much higher risk funds is something to be applauded. (hence it's 4 out 5 Crown Star rating no doubt).


    But you CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Jeez.


    Anyway, as I said, good day to you sir.

    Except that benchmark indices (or a combination) are normally selected with the exact same asset allocation as the fund. And the fund’s own page says it’s the bottom half.

    But I am still waiting for you to support the very first claim you made.
  • Mordko wrote: »
    Except that benchmark indices (or a combination) are normally selected with the exact same asset allocation as the fund. And the fund’s own page says it’s the bottom half.

    But I am still waiting for you to support the very first claim you made.


    I said, good day sir.


    P.S. Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
    Then shits all over the board.
    Then struts around like it won.
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.6K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    jonnyh1uk said:
    Mordko wrote: »
    The costs are very important. In my book anything approaching 1% is way too much (including IFA, fund TER, etc). 1% doesn’t sound like much but it can easily come to 100s of thousands during a typical portfolio lifespan. Given that one can own the world for 0.1%, hard to justify a portfolio which is heavily concentrated in the UK and is underperforming its own benchmark year in year out.

    Having said this, an appropriate asset allocation is the number one priority. Someone buying this portfolio must be able to withstand 50% drawdowns.




    50% drawdown?


    No Royal London Fund has EVER had this.


    Also, if you are 15 years plus from retirement why would this be a problem? Especially if you are contributing as you would be buying double the units for the same price after the fall.


    If you are closer to retirement you are unlikely to be in a High Equity version of the Governed Portfolios, you would be in one that was more weighted to Fixed Interest than Equity - which is why they have a range.


    You quote low charges but Royal London are incredibly low for a risk rate, re-balanced, and actively managed fund.


    The prices you have quoted are for Tracker Funds, a completely different proposition.


    You clearly do not understand the range or why they have risk ratings described as 'Moderately Cautious' and 'Balanced' for the same portfolio.
    Well, set up after the last bear has passed, several Royal London funds can now proudly say: “yes, we have!”
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support