Vanguard SIPP - Now open!!!

SnowMan

cloud_dog said:

SnowMan said:

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

Looks like they accept DB transfers but only with a positive recommendation.

For DC schemes it is cash transfer only and they don't offer drawdown for the moment.

Quite surprising and a bit disappointing that they don't allow re-registration of Vanguard funds held on other platforms to Vanguard on transfer.

Seems to be a bit against the spirit of the regulations, which while they require providers to offer re-registration as an option when transferring away from a provider they don't require it on transfer to that provider. The FCA rule is here I think, and seems to apply to SIPPs.

SnowMan, I can see the future....I can see you.... dabbling..... with a spreadsheet.

Ha ha. I had already updated the platform comparison spreadsheet. Hadn't uploaded it, as I wanted to do some checks on it before I uploaded it to my thread. But it should be OK and anyone wanting to download the new version 35 now because of this news (it includes the Vanguard SIPP) the link is

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wacGNlqMm2ehFSDY02NLLZ_ccBa6JdU2  

[Deleted User]

Prism said:

Equities and bonds should be in different funds so you can draw from each individually depending on recent market conditions.

There is no “should be” about it. That’s just your particular strategy of timing the market. VLS funds do rebalancing for you, so bond allocation % stays constant. Which is pretty much the standard recommended approach in most books on asset allocation 

bowlhead99

k6chris said:

So, all anyone needs to do to meet all their retirement needs is open up an account, put everything in the LS80 fund and then drawdown 4% (SWR) each year.  Job done.   Serious question, on a scale from 1 (utterly reckless) to 10 (best or the best), where would that strategy rank??

Not 'utterly' reckless because there are worse things you could do. But deciding to take out a fixed amount (or fixed proportion of each year end's balance, you don't say?)  each year, without knowing what the returns are going to be in what order, seems pretty poor.

Likewise so does just putting 'everything' in the fund without considering how much the 'everything' needs to be- your current pension balance from elsewhere of £50k, plus £200 a month until you retire? A £500k pot plus £1500pm for the next five years? Perhaps you are already retired with no scope to add to the pot but will be ready to start drawdown soon so the question of amount going in doesn't need to be answered. Still, picking one fund of trackers and deciding to taking out a known or formulaeic amount each year - regardless of investment performance or market conditions, and what your real expenditure might be - seems flawed. 

Really, 'reckless' depends on what probability of failure will you accept and what are you willing to accept as consequence of that failure? 
To some, a 10% chance of running out of money age 85 when you might live to 105 is totally unacceptable. Others might have fall back plans and be able to take on that risk. While others would think it reckless to even have a 5% chance of depleting the pot by age 90, and might accept a much lower potential return from an annuity contract instead.

I give you 3 out of 10 at the most, as "all you need to do is X, job done" seems a very long way from 'best of the best' level of planning.

Prism

Deleted_User said:

Prism said:

Equities and bonds should be in different funds so you can draw from each individually depending on recent market conditions.

There is no “should be” about it. That’s just your particular strategy of timing the market. VLS funds do rebalancing for you, so bond allocation % stays constant. Which is pretty much the standard recommended approach in most books on asset allocation 

Its absolutely nothing to do with timing the market since its purely reactive. Keeping bond allocations static is one way of doing it but historical stats suggest that its not the 'best' way of doing it during drawdown. Hence my point. Most books on asset allocation as you put it don't consider that part of your life when you are withdrawing capital. Hoping that a standard 80/20 allocation will see you through the most important part of your investing life is well... hopeful. 

Sailtheworld

I already a pension pot that is predominantly built on Vanguard ETFs but A J Bell / Youinvest are significantly cheaper. Maybe they're hoping most people don't check the charges.

mcooke999

Just requested to transfer my SIPP from HL! Not got a massive pot so it will do for me whilst I build it up

Sailtheworld

k6chris said:

So, all anyone needs to do to meet all their retirement needs is open up an account, put everything in the LS80 fund and then drawdown 4% (SWR) each year.  Job done.   Serious question, on a scale from 1 (utterly reckless) to 10 (best or the best), where would that strategy rank??

9/10. You'd have a better plan than 95% of the population (not a high bar admittedly). To get a 10 you'd need to check that the fund and platform charge remained competitive every now and again and ensure that the drawdown was sufficient to meet your outgoings.

BlueTewk

Vanguard say their SIPP doesn't support drawdown but does this also mean they don't support UFPLS?  I don't want to transfer my pension to a drawdown product (and get 25% as a one-off large lump sum).

marlot

BlueTewk said:

Vanguard say their SIPP doesn't support drawdown but does this also mean they don't support UFPLS?  I don't want to transfer my pension to a drawdown product (and get 25% as a one-off large lump sum).

It probably will in time, but not yet.

[Deleted User]

BlueTewk said:

Vanguard say their SIPP doesn't support drawdown but does this also mean they don't support UFPLS?  I don't want to transfer my pension to a drawdown product (and get 25% as a one-off large lump sum).

I've recently closed my SIPP with HL and hold assets in an ISA wrapper.
When I need to I'll manage my own drawdown with no tax worries.  I may well consider transferring the vanguard parts of my holdings to Vanguard to save on fees though.