Wealth Manager costs

bigadaj

Prism said:

bigadaj said:

Cus said:

A few,  I look for what I would likely do if I was DIY.  So a combination of vanguard 60/40, 80/20, a couple of the fidelity equivalents, and others. Also do a check against a few MSCI indices just to compare.  I try to match against my current portfolio but that's a moving beast to a degree.

So have they beaten them all by 9% or a particular one and does that match the equivalent risk profile. 

It wouldn't surprise me. The VLS range has performed pretty badly over the last three years or so. VLS 100, 80 and 60 have been annualising at around 5% which hasn't been too difficult to beat. 

Yes I realise that vls will have underperformed a world tracker, with bonds, but the specific figure of 9% quoted doesn't make sense if you are comparing with a range of equity variable benchmarks. My suspicion is that this is just something that poster has been told and obviously isn't objective the WM may have ou performed but against what and at what risk level.

Prism

bigadaj said:

Prism said:

bigadaj said:

Cus said:

A few,  I look for what I would likely do if I was DIY.  So a combination of vanguard 60/40, 80/20, a couple of the fidelity equivalents, and others. Also do a check against a few MSCI indices just to compare.  I try to match against my current portfolio but that's a moving beast to a degree.

So have they beaten them all by 9% or a particular one and does that match the equivalent risk profile. 

It wouldn't surprise me. The VLS range has performed pretty badly over the last three years or so. VLS 100, 80 and 60 have been annualising at around 5% which hasn't been too difficult to beat. 

Yes I realise that vls will have underperformed a world tracker, with bonds, but the specific figure of 9% quoted doesn't make sense if you are comparing with a range of equity variable benchmarks. My suspicion is that this is just something that poster has been told and obviously isn't objective the WM may have ou performed but against what and at what risk level.

I think part of the problem with the VLS range has been its allocation choices. Over the last 3 years VLS 100 has underperformed a world tracker by about 9% which is why I didn't find that comparision surprising. A DIY investor or IFA could have made anywhere north of 40% if they were using active funds or some sector passives, even if the risk levels were dialled down a bit. 

Cus

The 9% is my approximation over the fidelity ones actually.  What would be better? I am 28% up after all fees from aug 1st 2017, with a 65 to 70% equity ratio and a mid level risk appetite. As mentioned it's not easy to find the exact benchmark to compare, and I really am looking at what I would maybe do if I was DIY. The WFM firm try to compare against a specific MSCI index but I think that's pointless. I use my bbg to check against many different levels to ensure that I am doing better than if I was DIY.

bigadaj

Cus said:

The 9% is my approximation over the fidelity ones actually.  What would be better? I am 28% up after all fees from aug 1st 2017, with a 65 to 70% equity ratio and a mid level risk appetite. As mentioned it's not easy to find the exact benchmark to compare, and I really am looking at what I would maybe do if I was DIY. The WFM firm try to compare against a specific MSCI index but I think that's pointless. I use my bbg to check against many different levels to ensure that I am doing better than if I was DIY.

OK thanks, it's obviously critical to ensure a benchmark is suitably applied and compared. Additional fees of say 1.5% are obviously significant, if it delivers value in terms of returns then that's fine but the obviosu way of generally getting higher returns is to take on higher risk.