Transfer medium size pot entirely to VWRL (or similar)?

Chickereeeee

Linton said:

In overall allocations, possibly, but quite different in management terms.  You can basically ignore a long term growth fund whereas you cant ignore the investments that are providing your income.  Also, managing payments from a SIPP can be a bit of a pain whereas from an S&S ISA or unsheltered it can all be easily done online. Conversely keeping your "for the kids inheritance" money in your SIPP could be IHT tax advantageous.

Not really. My current way of working is to take out from a SIPP enough to just keep me below HRT, and  use for living expenses (together with ISA income). and/or putting any leftover capital into the ISA. SIPP withdrawals/trades are handled online similar to an ISA. With reference to my original point, it would be 'easier' to swap e.g. VWRL Acc in the SIPP for VWRL Inc in the ISA, than my current multi-fund approach!

jamesd

Chickereeeee said:

Smaller companies: would not an All-Cap fund cover that? Also, I think small-caps, in general, offer higher returns with higher volatility.

Trackers are normally cap-weighted so the value of smaller market capitalisation companies held will be minimal in an all-cap tracker. Bill Bengen found that adding small-caps increased the US safe withdrawal rate from 4% to 4.5% of initial capital and that seems worthwhile if you'd value that. Later he wrote "I constrained small-cap stocks to a maximum of only about 17.5% of the portfolio because I was concerned about their volatility" though he'd also reduced the total equity portion.

BritishInvestor

jamesd said:

Chickereeeee said:

Smaller companies: would not an All-Cap fund cover that? Also, I think small-caps, in general, offer higher returns with higher volatility.

Trackers are normally cap-weighted so the value of smaller market capitalisation companies held will be minimal in an all-cap tracker. Bill Bengen found that adding small-caps increased the US safe withdrawal rate from 4% to 4.5% of initial capital and that seems worthwhile if you'd value that. Later he wrote "I constrained small-cap stocks to a maximum of only about 17.5% of the portfolio because I was concerned about their volatility" though he'd also reduced the total equity portion.

Small cap tilt is an interesting one. Any tilt away from the market can have large periods of underperformance  (see small cap value over the last decade) so you'd need to be comfortable with this.

Chickereeeee

jamesd said:

Chickereeeee said:

Smaller companies: would not an All-Cap fund cover that? Also, I think small-caps, in general, offer higher returns with higher volatility.

Trackers are normally cap-weighted so the value of smaller market capitalisation companies held will be minimal in an all-cap tracker. Bill Bengen found that adding small-caps increased the US safe withdrawal rate from 4% to 4.5% of initial capital and that seems worthwhile if you'd value that. Later he wrote "I constrained small-cap stocks to a maximum of only about 17.5% of the portfolio because I was concerned about their volatility" though he'd also reduced the total equity portion.

That seems to agree with my belief (higher returns/higher volatility).

I did not see any answers that suggested holding most of one's wealth in  just one or two ETFs (or funds) was a bad idea. I dont think (large, diversified tracker) ETFs  are any more risky than their fund counterparts, are they?

AnotherJoe

Chickereeeee said:

jamesd said:

Chickereeeee said:

Smaller companies: would not an All-Cap fund cover that? Also, I think small-caps, in general, offer higher returns with higher volatility.

Trackers are normally cap-weighted so the value of smaller market capitalisation companies held will be minimal in an all-cap tracker. Bill Bengen found that adding small-caps increased the US safe withdrawal rate from 4% to 4.5% of initial capital and that seems worthwhile if you'd value that. Later he wrote "I constrained small-cap stocks to a maximum of only about 17.5% of the portfolio because I was concerned about their volatility" though he'd also reduced the total equity portion.

That seems to agree with my belief (higher returns/higher volatility).

I did not see any answers that suggested holding most of one's wealth in  just one or two ETFs (or funds) was a bad idea. I dont think (large, diversified tracker) ETFs  are any more risky than their fund counterparts, are they?

I dont believe so, though some here have said that but I'm not sure why.

jamesd

BritishInvestor said:

Any tilt away from the market can have large periods of underperformance  (see small cap value over the last decade) so you'd need to be comfortable with this.

A bad decade for value but I've done quite well from small cap without value concentration.

Chickereeeee said:

I did not see any answers that suggested holding most of one's wealth in  just one or two ETFs (or funds) was a bad idea. I dont think (large, diversified tracker) ETFs  are any more risky than their fund counterparts, are they?

It's clearly more risky because ETFs have no FSCS protection against fraud or failure at a fund house or pension provider.

At a maximum you'd want either insured pension funds with unlimited protection offered by some insurers or no more than the FSCS limit with each fund house.

Beyond fund house risk there's pension provider risk. Investors are likely to have to pay the insolvency bill unless their total holding is less than the FSCS limit. In addition, all withdrawing and other transactions could be blocked for many years.

BritishInvestor

jamesd said:

BritishInvestor said:

Any tilt away from the market can have large periods of underperformance  (see small cap value over the last decade) so you'd need to be comfortable with this.

A bad decade for value but I've done quite well from small cap without value concentration.

Chickereeeee said:

I did not see any answers that suggested holding most of one's wealth in  just one or two ETFs (or funds) was a bad idea. I dont think (large, diversified tracker) ETFs  are any more risky than their fund counterparts, are they?

It's clearly more risky because ETFs have no FSCS protection against fraud or failure at a fund house or pension provider.

At a maximum you'd want either insured pension funds with unlimited protection offered by some insurers or no more than the FSCS limit with each fund house.

Beyond fund house risk there's pension provider risk. Investors are likely to have to pay the insolvency bill unless their total holding is less than the FSCS limit. In addition, all withdrawing and other transactions could be blocked for many years.

I haven't seen small cap without value tilt do that well either on a global scale over the last decade - I'm assuming you are buying on a more "local" level

Chickereeeee

For maximum FSCS protection, then,  something like twelve global index tracker funds, each from separate fund houses...  And  held on at least two platforms, for 'resilience'. .....