Investment period VLS

83705628

csgohan4 said:

bowlhead99 said:

Sailtheworld said:

The last recession which lasted longer than 12 years started in 1430.

If you want to get in before history repeats itself, get in quick and invest now, as it's 0930 already!

invest in Gold and bit coins quick, seems to be the flavor of the month sadly

Yup, have you seen the reaction I got in the best bitcoin rates thread?

Albermarle

fully one third of the 51 replies on the thread were you banging on about the fact that people should not invest in bitcoins.

Makes a change from him banging on about the joys of Home Bias investments 

bowlhead99

tcallaghan93 said:

bowlhead99 said:

tcallaghan93 said
Yup, have you seen the reaction I got in the best bitcoin rates thread?

You didn't offer any solution to the person looking to sell their bitcoin for the best rate, other than to express your incredulity that anyone would actually have any bitcoins that they wish to sell, because you believe bitcoins are terrible. Despite not offering any practical options for the person seeking the best rates to sell their coins, you went on about how they are not a good investment for 17 posts - fully one third of the 51 replies on the thread were you banging on about the fact that people should not invest in bitcoins.

You didn't get a very gracious reaction to your non-useful comments, because the original poster of the thread was not looking for someone to talk them out of owning the bitcoins that they already owned and were already trying to sell. 

See, even in a different threat you get the same hostility from an experienced poster on these forums!

No offence intended, just providing the backstory to your getting an unwanted reaction in a thread about the best bitcoin rates in which you couldn't offer any assistance because you didn't know where to find the best rates to sell bitcoin but wanted to bang on about your personally-held views about the unsuitability of bitcoin, ostensibly to 'protect' others.   

The utility of the forum won't be enhanced by your going around all the threads telling people what reaction you perceive you're getting to your attitude on different unrelated threads. If you want to bring it up, you risk things spilling over from one place to another.   

As with covid-19, better lockdown and quarantine rather than spreading everything about. 

83705628

Albermarle said:

fully one third of the 51 replies on the thread were you banging on about the fact that people should not invest in bitcoins.

Makes a change from him banging on about the joys of Home Bias investments 

/
Nah, just the myth that you need to diversify globally.

83705628

bowlhead99 said:

tcallaghan93 said:

bowlhead99 said:

tcallaghan93 said
Yup, have you seen the reaction I got in the best bitcoin rates thread?

You didn't offer any solution to the person looking to sell their bitcoin for the best rate, other than to express your incredulity that anyone would actually have any bitcoins that they wish to sell, because you believe bitcoins are terrible. Despite not offering any practical options for the person seeking the best rates to sell their coins, you went on about how they are not a good investment for 17 posts - fully one third of the 51 replies on the thread were you banging on about the fact that people should not invest in bitcoins.

You didn't get a very gracious reaction to your non-useful comments, because the original poster of the thread was not looking for someone to talk them out of owning the bitcoins that they already owned and were already trying to sell. 

See, even in a different threat you get the same hostility from an experienced poster on these forums!

No offence intended, just providing the backstory to your getting an unwanted reaction in a thread about the best bitcoin rates in which you couldn't offer any assistance because you didn't know where to find the best rates to sell bitcoin but wanted to bang on about your personally-held views about the unsuitability of bitcoin, ostensibly to 'protect' others.   

The utility of the forum won't be enhanced by your going around all the threads telling people what reaction you perceive you're getting to your attitude on different unrelated threads. If you want to bring it up, you risk things spilling over from one place to another.   

As with covid-19, better lockdown and quarantine rather than spreading everything about. 

/
Not opinions. It wasn't a debate. This is like trying to rationalise with a flat-earther.

sixpence.

ANYWAY, back to VLS investment time periods  
I'm not actually a teacher but I was using that as an example. It does seem like thrifty living is the way forward... 
What do people think of a strategy like this. You would split up a larger portfolio say 6-7 figures in this way:

• 1-2 years in cash (emergency fund)
• 3-5 years in VLS 20 (for more immediate use: emergency or if you want to make a big purchase)
• 6-10 years VLS 60
• 11-15 years VLS 80
• 15+ years VLS 100

The number of years is based on a persons yearly spending money. Does that make sense? So If you calculated that you want to live off 25K per year then you would have 50K in cash and 75K in the VLS 20.

83705628

sixpence. said:

ANYWAY, back to VLS investment time periods  
I'm not actually a teacher but I was using that as an example. It does seem like thrifty living is the way forward... 
What do people think of a strategy like this. You would split up a larger portfolio say 6-7 figures in this way:

• 1-2 years in cash (emergency fund)
• 3-5 years in VLS 20 (for more immediate use: emergency or if you want to make a big purchase)
• 6-10 years VLS 60
• 11-15 years VLS 80
• 15+ years VLS 100

The number of years is based on a persons yearly spending money. Does that make sense? So If you calculated that you want to live off 25K per year then you would have 50K in cash and 75K in the VLS 20.

/
Ah bucket approach.
Well firstly, a reasonable return expectation after costs for VLS20 is less than NS&I's 1.16%.
Save yourself some work, work out how many stocks and bonds are in the total and you could pick one LS fund closest to that number?

sixpence.

tcallaghan93 said:

sixpence. said:

ANYWAY, back to VLS investment time periods  
I'm not actually a teacher but I was using that as an example. It does seem like thrifty living is the way forward... 
What do people think of a strategy like this. You would split up a larger portfolio say 6-7 figures in this way:

• 1-2 years in cash (emergency fund)
• 3-5 years in VLS 20 (for more immediate use: emergency or if you want to make a big purchase)
• 6-10 years VLS 60
• 11-15 years VLS 80
• 15+ years VLS 100

The number of years is based on a persons yearly spending money. Does that make sense? So If you calculated that you want to live off 25K per year then you would have 50K in cash and 75K in the VLS 20.

/
Ah bucket approach.
Well firstly, a reasonable return expectation after costs for VLS20 is less than NS&I's 1.16%.
Save yourself some work, work out how many stocks and bonds are in the total and you could pick one LS fund closest to that number?

Are you sure about that? It seems a bit higher: https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/v/vanguard-lifestrategy-20-equity-accumulation/charts

I guess the advance of dividing it up that way is that the investment is structured according to a strategy. I worked it out and it was about 52% in bonds. 

83705628

sixpence. said:

tcallaghan93 said:

sixpence. said:

ANYWAY, back to VLS investment time periods  
I'm not actually a teacher but I was using that as an example. It does seem like thrifty living is the way forward... 
What do people think of a strategy like this. You would split up a larger portfolio say 6-7 figures in this way:

• 1-2 years in cash (emergency fund)
• 3-5 years in VLS 20 (for more immediate use: emergency or if you want to make a big purchase)
• 6-10 years VLS 60
• 11-15 years VLS 80
• 15+ years VLS 100

The number of years is based on a persons yearly spending money. Does that make sense? So If you calculated that you want to live off 25K per year then you would have 50K in cash and 75K in the VLS 20.

/
Ah bucket approach.
Well firstly, a reasonable return expectation after costs for VLS20 is less than NS&I's 1.16%.
Save yourself some work, work out how many stocks and bonds are in the total and you could pick one LS fund closest to that number?

Are you sure about that? It seems a bit higher: https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/v/vanguard-lifestrategy-20-equity-accumulation/charts

I guess the advance of dividing it up that way is that the investment is structured according to a strategy. I worked it out and it was about 52% in bonds. 

/
20% global equity, Vanguard's reasonable return expectation is looking at 5-7%, so 6%*20% = 1.2% (I think that's optimistic by the way, global equity valuations are back to start of year bubble levels as if we're not in a recession, but anyhoo), less fees of ~0.4% leaves ~0.8%.
80% global bonds, yield is 0.9%, *80% = 0.72%, less fees of ~0.4% leaves ~0.3% - this is before any defaults.
Totals ~1.1%

bowlhead99

tcallaghan93 said:

sixpence. said:

tcallaghan93 said:

sixpence. said:

ANYWAY, back to VLS investment time periods  
I'm not actually a teacher but I was using that as an example. It does seem like thrifty living is the way forward... 
What do people think of a strategy like this. You would split up a larger portfolio say 6-7 figures in this way:

• 1-2 years in cash (emergency fund)
• 3-5 years in VLS 20 (for more immediate use: emergency or if you want to make a big purchase)
• 6-10 years VLS 60
• 11-15 years VLS 80
• 15+ years VLS 100

The number of years is based on a persons yearly spending money. Does that make sense? So If you calculated that you want to live off 25K per year then you would have 50K in cash and 75K in the VLS 20.

/
Ah bucket approach.
Well firstly, a reasonable return expectation after costs for VLS20 is less than NS&I's 1.16%.
Save yourself some work, work out how many stocks and bonds are in the total and you could pick one LS fund closest to that number?

Are you sure about that? It seems a bit higher: https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/v/vanguard-lifestrategy-20-equity-accumulation/charts

I guess the advance of dividing it up that way is that the investment is structured according to a strategy. I worked it out and it was about 52% in bonds. 

/
20% global equity, Vanguard's reasonable return expectation is looking at 5-7%, so 6%*20% = 1.2% (I think that's optimistic by the way, global equity valuations are back to start of year bubble levels as if we're not in a recession, but anyhoo), less fees of ~0.4% leaves ~0.8%.
80% global bonds, yield is 0.9%, *80% = 0.72%, less fees of ~0.4% leaves ~0.3% - this is before any defaults.
Totals ~1.1%

As an exercise in mathematics, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to decide that the returns were going to be 1.2% of portfolio value from the equities part and 0.72% of portfolio value from the bond part to give 1.92% blended average, and then decide to take off "fees of 0.4%" TWICE to give 1.1%.   There is only one lot of fees for the product (0.37% via Vanguard's own platform including management fees of 0.22% and platform fee of 0.15%) so you would take that from the 1.92% and leave 1.55%. 

Still, whether the 1.92% gross is actually some other number is only a guesstimate, so the point that you wouldn't expect much of a return from a product made of 20% equities and 80% bond indexes, is fair.