shares, time to sell ???

capital0ne

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The funds are needed in about a year, and there is a chance of price falls between now and then that would be far more significant than any dividend.

The money isn't needed "...but perhaps within the next 12/18 months..."

Best to hold and not sell, because in 18 months time the indecision will still exist.

Malthusian

LobsterMemory wrote: »

I see that the OP asked a similar question on here about Northern Rock shares in 2006 and was advised to hold on

Asking the same bunch of people is a clear triumph of hope over experience...

Same bunch of people? I can't see a single person in that thread who is still around 13 years later.

People did comment in passing about the risks of the OP being overexposed to bank shares. But it is interesting how replies to a thread like this differed 13 years ago. Vanguard LifeStrategy hadn't yet been launched and while index-tracking funds existed, they weren't available to the same extent and hadn't caught DIY investors' consciousness in the same way. And they tended not to be "one-stop shop" solutions like Vanguard. So you didn't get the automatic "sell and buy Vanguard LifeStrategy" response back then.

If you were a DIY investor and savvy enough to visit a Savings and Investments forum it was still common to hold a mish-mash of individual shares and maybe unit trusts. Non savvy people would often visit their bank and get sold something rather than go to MSE.

Nowadays we can say to someone "buy Vanguard LifeStrategy and hold" and the only way that can lose them money is if they don't follow the advice (e.g. by panicking and selling) or the apocalypse happens, neither of which needs to bother us. ("They didn't done do what I done told them" doesn't work in regulated advice but is bulletproof for man-in-the-pub advice.)

That wasn't the case in 2006 when one-stop passive funds were either non-existent or very obscure. You either had to tell someone to buy a whole bunch of funds (inviting the response "which ones") or tell them to buy an actively managed multi-asset fund, which meant leaving them in the hands of the fund manager.

ArchBair

OP out of the shares you have, I also hold Santander and would not sell mainly because there is huge potential/growth in this bank in South America.

Zola.

LobsterMemory wrote: »

I see that the OP asked a similar question on here about Northern Rock shares in 2006 and was advised to hold on

Asking the same bunch of people is a clear triumph of hope over experience...

:rotfl: your username just makes this even more amusing

bostonerimus

Malthusian wrote: »

Same bunch of people? I can't see a single person in that thread who is still around 13 years later.

I was with a friend recently in bar that I've been going to for 25 years and he said to me, "the faces are different, but the people are the same."

Nowadays we can say to someone "buy Vanguard LifeStrategy and hold" and the only way that can lose them money is if they don't follow the advice (e.g. by panicking and selling) or the apocalypse happens, neither of which needs to bother us. ("They didn't done do what I done told them" doesn't work in regulated advice but is bulletproof for man-in-the-pub advice.)

That wasn't the case in 2006 when one-stop passive funds were either non-existent or very obscure. You either had to tell someone to buy a whole bunch of funds (inviting the response "which ones") or tell them to buy an actively managed multi-asset fund, which meant leaving them in the hands of the fund manager.

This might have been true for the UK, but passive investing and low cost multi-asset funds made up of various index funds have been around for a long time in other places. It's good to see the UK adopting some new ideas as they can shake up a pretty insular and moribund institutions.