LifeStrategy 40

Sue58

Linton, could I ask you why you prefer to hold Trojan O as opposed to Personal Assets?

poppy10_2

CRAIGSVILLE said:

VLS 40 on its own has an annualised performance of 7.2 % over 10 yrs according to Trustnet.

Where do you find the annualised 10 year performance on Trustnet? Can't find it

fred246

poppy10_2 said:

CRAIGSVILLE said:

VLS 40 on its own has an annualised performance of 7.2 % over 10 yrs according to Trustnet.

Where do you find the annualised 10 year performance on Trustnet? Can't find it

I don't think VLS40 has been going for 10 years yet.

fred246

It's amazing how poor the investment returns would be for a cautious investor using an IFA with high fees.

Prism

fred246 said:

It's amazing how poor the investment returns would be for a cautious investor using an IFA with high fees.

It's amazing how poor the investment returns would be for a cautious investor who pretty much sticks to cash because they don't understand investing or for an investor who doesn't realise how cautious they really are until the first crash happens (actually more likely a small correction which still causes them to sell up and run).
Btw I'm not an IFA or use an IFA but know people who likely should. Aminatidi's mum is getting help here but not everyone has that assistance.

CRAIGSVILLE1

Linton said:

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:

Look at the Trojan O fund.  It goes back to Jun 2001 , with an annualised performance of 7.2 %

It has about 33% global equities, 10% gold , and the rest in bonds/gilts etc.

It has only lost 10% of its value twice in that time, which is good going.

Only slight downside is the AMC 1.0% fee  

If you are happy with an annualised performance of 7.2% why is the AMC a downside?  The AMC is already included in the 7.2%.

I didn't realise that the AMC is already included in the annualised performance figure ?? 
 

CRAIGSVILLE1

poppy10_2 said:

CRAIGSVILLE said:

VLS 40 on its own has an annualised performance of 7.2 % over 10 yrs according to Trustnet.

Where do you find the annualised 10 year performance on Trustnet? Can't find it

Sorry, it is 9 yrs approx, but start of data is 7.2%

bowlhead99

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:

Linton said:

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:

Look at the Trojan O fund.  It goes back to Jun 2001 , with an annualised performance of 7.2 %

It has about 33% global equities, 10% gold , and the rest in bonds/gilts etc.

It has only lost 10% of its value twice in that time, which is good going.

Only slight downside is the AMC 1.0% fee  

If you are happy with an annualised performance of 7.2% why is the AMC a downside?  The AMC is already included in the 7.2%.

I didn't realise that the AMC is already included in the annualised performance figure ?? 
 

It would be much more difficult to provide comparative charts and annual / annualised performance if it were not.

All costs of the fund's business and operations (the AMC, the other components of ongoing charges figure, the fund's own transaction costs from buying and selling its underlying investments, any taxes it incurs as it goes about its business etc) must inevitably be captured within the movement between 'what it was worth then' and 'what it's worth now'. 
 
The fund manager will report that bottom line performance, or third parties (fund platforms, newspapers etc) will see it for themselves in the published prices and draw their own charts and performance tables. You can't hide the costs because the bottom line is public domain info. It would be quite a bit harder to try to draw a graph of what the gross performance might have been if all those costs didn't exist, because they do exist and they impact the fund's assets.

The costs not included in the charts or performance tables would just be the costs that the fund manager can't control and whose impact would differ for everyone, e.g. how much you pay to your chosen fund platform or advisor for the service of helping you buy and hold the fund, or whether there was a spread between buy and sell prices for the shares on a given day. Those costs would depend on your choice of platform provider, amount invested, pattern of buying/selling activity. 

So the published charts and tables will generally assume you held the investment at the beginning and end of the time period, and let you know how it performed in between.

Aminatidi

bowlhead99 said:

fred246 said:

OK I shouldn't have mentioned VLS100 as it's a bit irrelevant. We are discussing MyFolio, VLS40 and VLS60. 
5 year performance MyFolio 21.4% VLS40 37.33% VLS60 47.71%
Biggest annual loss MyFolio -5% VLS40 -2.3% VLS60 -3.1%
So you invest in MyFolio purely for when you expect the stockmarket to crash?

I would agree that My folio (which has been a 3 on the KID 1-7 risk scale; the 3 and 4 and 5 brackets can contain funds across a pretty broad spectrum of risk) appears to have been taking lower risks than VLS60, so I can see why the OP would feel like VLS60 would be a jump up in risk. 

The myfolio product is targeting a range of volatility - that's what it's designed to do. The VLS60 product is not designed to do that, and is instead designed to deliver whatever the performance of a fixed ratio of bonds to equities, and a fixed ratio of UK stockmarket tracker equities to international equities, happens to be.

So, you could imagine why it might be useful for a more cautious investor who is not especially comfortable with market risk. Whereas someone who is happier with a performance-targeted tracker-based return of 'whatever the return happens to be', might well go for the Vanguard product.

I think it would be a significant jump in risk unless Standard Life did something really weird with the Myfolio II Managed?

I did ponder some of the "wealth preservation" type funds like Trojan and Capital Gearing but I think part of this exercise is to keep things simple and I think I'm at a point where my mum could handle the Vanguard account directly so far as adding money.

I don't have the same confidence with the simplicity of other platforms with a much larger offering.

And of course 0.4% all-in seems like a number that really matters here.

Thrugelmir

fred246 said:

It's amazing how poor the investment returns would be for a cautious investor using an IFA with high fees.

That's a very old saying in the investment world. 
"Financial disasters happen when the last person who can remember what went wrong last time has left the building. "