Just retired advice

enthusiasticsaver

I agree that if you are only invested in one geographical region (UK) it would be better to diversify and invest globally. I also would not only be investing in equities if I were you and would look at multi asset funds. Investing in just one area and 100% in equities is risky and unless you are prepared to take that risk (which it sounds like you aren't) then you should take the risk profile down and invest in something less risky. Check out multi asset global passive funds.

AnotherJoe

Making_trax wrote: »

I know whether a index trackers are better than managed funds is the cause of a fair amount of controversy in the world of investment. But I always thought that the actual evidence was fairly clear cut, showing that index trackers beat the vast majority of managed funds over the long term.

Not quite. Index trackers beat the majority of managed funds operating in the same area as the index fund.
So your FTSE100 index fund has likely done better than an active fund that deals in U.K. shares...... but unfortunately for you and this isn't any help but may help someone else that has just started one, it will have done terribly compared to a global index fund. B cause as said FTSE100 is a terrible place to invest.
As in whilst you are up 20% which I would guess isn't even matching inflation* a global fund would be up perhaps 300-500% .... a quick search for a global fund showed by 300% in the last 15 years.
So if you plan to stay invested sell it and buy a global fund, if you don't, then put it in higher interest rate savings where at least you might match inflation.

*ata quick look inflation over that period was 70% so you are down , crudely, ,50%. Sorry.

seacaitch

AnotherJoe wrote: »

As in whilst you are up 20%

...

*ata quick look inflation over that period was 70% so you are down , crudely, ,50%. Sorry.

Come off it, AJ! He'll have had 20 years of (reinvested) FTSE100 dividends, so the results should be something along the lines outlined in SonOf's post above.

AnotherJoe

seacaitch wrote: »

Come off it, AJ! He'll have had 20 years of (reinvested) FTSE100 dividends, so the results should be something along the lines outlined in SonOf's post above.

Fair enough i skim read the OPs 6000 --> 7300 as their total return, but adding in dividends is shown in something like the HSBC 120%, which then needs to be decremented by 70% for a real return of 50% ish.
Which still will have been trivial compared to a global fund.