Why Vanguard's Tracking Error?

dunstonh

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

Another_Saver

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

Linton

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

With dividends reinvested, to nearest 5%
1995-1999: FTSE100 +170%  FTSE World +130%
2000-2004: FTSE100 -20%     FTSE World - 20%
2005-2009: FTSE100 +35%    FTSE World +40%
2010-2014: FTSE100 +45%    FTSE World+65%
2015-2019: FTSE100 +40%    FTSE World +80%

The FTSE World has outperformed the FTSE100 for about 15 years, and every 5 years has shown higher relative performance for the FTSE World than the previous 5 years for 20 years.  Pure chance or a long term trend?
I agree that the OP would be better off in the Vanguard Global All-cap fund

grumiofoundation

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

Believing you have a method to determine future returns but then using an index fund(s) seems slightly odd to me? 

Another_Saver

Linton said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

With dividends reinvested, to nearest 5%
1995-1999: FTSE100 +170%  FTSE World +130%
2000-2004: FTSE100 -20%     FTSE World - 20%
2005-2009: FTSE100 +35%    FTSE World +40%
2010-2014: FTSE100 +45%    FTSE World+65%
2015-2019: FTSE100 +40%    FTSE World +80%

The FTSE World has outperformed the FTSE100 for about 15 years, and every 5 years has shown higher relative performance for the FTSE World than the previous 5 years for 20 years.  Pure chance or a long term trend?
I agree that the OP would be better off in the Vanguard Global All-cap fund

Time to break out the actual facts, not the adjusted facts to suit some people's feelings.

Since we're talking about the last 25 years, I've attached 6 pdfs generated on trustnet showing the FTSE 100 vs the FTSE World from 1/1/95-1/1/20, 1/1/95-date, 1/1/95-23/6/16 and 23/6/16-date, and two which add in the FTSE All World ex-US index from 2016-2020 and 2016-date.

It is plainly clear that the before the referendum, the UK and world indices behaved almost identically. You can see the FTSE 100 appearing to have an early dot com bubble because of the Asian boom and 1998 financial crisis, and rising faster during the 2003-07 bull run but crashing to the same trough, both due to the weight of financials.

For earlier data, IA Global goes back to 1/1/90, anything earlier than that all I can find for the UK/US is the Barclays Equity Gilts Study, multpl.com and dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/.

The "long term trend" has only appeared since the referendum and is largely explained by the current gulf in valuations (FTSE 100 CAPE ~12 vs ~22.5-24 for the total/developed world, VUKE PB 1.4 vs 2.2 for the Vanguard global all cap, 2.4 for VEVE and 2.5 for VDevWrdxUK as at 30/9/20 /ISF PB 1.33 vs 2.45 for IWDG as at 29/10/20), probably some currency movement too.

If you believe that this is a long term trend, you should be overweighting the US.

People downtalk the UK as if the rest of the world doesn't have challenges.

I don't believe this is a repeat of the early 1970s crash, but maybe it will rhyme.

I look forward to being proven right soon enough

grumiofoundation said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

Believing you have a method to determine future returns but then using an index fund(s) seems slightly odd to me? 

I do, that's why I use index funds, because I don't have the time or inclination to try and "fully" actively manage my portfolio or find someone who can. If you believe in the opposing hypothesis (short term trends indicating future returns), seems slightly odd that you wouldn't put all your money on Tesla or bitcoin?

Thrugelmir

Linton said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

With dividends reinvested, to nearest 5%
1995-1999: FTSE100 +170%  FTSE World +130%
2000-2004: FTSE100 -20%     FTSE World - 20%
2005-2009: FTSE100 +35%    FTSE World +40%
2010-2014: FTSE100 +45%    FTSE World+65%
2015-2019: FTSE100 +40%    FTSE World +80%

The FTSE World has outperformed the FTSE100 for about 15 years, and every 5 years has shown higher relative performance for the FTSE World than the previous 5 years for 20 years.  Pure chance or a long term trend?
I agree that the OP would be better off in the Vanguard Global All-cap fund

Will the stocks driving the market meet expectations? 

bowlhead99

grumiofoundation said:

Another_Saver said

Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

His comment isn't inconsistent with what he's saying though:
- if you're going 100% equities and don't feel confident in making a judgement call based on knowledge/ understanding/ academic research etc, buy a simple global index fund like the global all cap which doesn't have any special weighting one way or the other.
- whereas if you do have knowledge /understanding / and agree with academics on valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets, you might still use indexes but build your own portfolio and end up with a third international, a third FTSE 250, a third FTSE100 or whatever, looking at P/E or CAPE rather than market cap to split money between regions or sectors etc.

Linton

Another_Saver said:

Linton said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

With dividends reinvested, to nearest 5%
1995-1999: FTSE100 +170%  FTSE World +130%
2000-2004: FTSE100 -20%     FTSE World - 20%
2005-2009: FTSE100 +35%    FTSE World +40%
2010-2014: FTSE100 +45%    FTSE World+65%
2015-2019: FTSE100 +40%    FTSE World +80%

The FTSE World has outperformed the FTSE100 for about 15 years, and every 5 years has shown higher relative performance for the FTSE World than the previous 5 years for 20 years.  Pure chance or a long term trend?
I agree that the OP would be better off in the Vanguard Global All-cap fund

Time to break out the actual facts, not the adjusted facts to suit some people's feelings.

Since we're talking about the last 25 years, I've attached 6 pdfs generated on trustnet showing the FTSE 100 vs the FTSE World from 1/1/95-1/1/20, 1/1/95-date, 1/1/95-23/6/16 and 23/6/16-date, and two which add in the FTSE All World ex-US index from 2016-2020 and 2016-date.

It is plainly clear that the before the referendum, the UK and world indices behaved almost identically. You can see the FTSE 100 appearing to have an early dot com bubble because of the Asian boom and 1998 financial crisis, and rising faster during the 2003-07 bull run but crashing to the same trough, both due to the weight of financials.

For earlier data, IA Global goes back to 1/1/90, anything earlier than that all I can find for the UK/US is the Barclays Equity Gilts Study, multpl.com and dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/.

The "long term trend" has only appeared since the referendum and is largely explained by the current gulf in valuations (FTSE 100 CAPE ~12 vs ~22.5-24 for the total/developed world, VUKE PB 1.4 vs 2.2 for the Vanguard global all cap, 2.4 for VEVE and 2.5 for VDevWrdxUK as at 30/9/20 /ISF PB 1.33 vs 2.45 for IWDG as at 29/10/20).

If you believe that this is a long term trend, you should be overweighting the US.

People downtalk the UK as if the rest of the world doesn't have challenges.

I don't believe this is a repeat of the early 1970s crash, but maybe it will rhyme.

I look forward to being proven right soon enough

grumiofoundation said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

Believing you have a method to determine future returns but then using an index fund(s) seems slightly odd to me? 

I do, that is why I use index funds.

The figures I gave are correct.

You seem to be making the classic mistake of looking at a linear graph  which makes recent growth appear much more significant than earier growth. Growth from 0 to100% looks the same as growth from 600% to 700%.  It is actually about 7 times as much. 
I suggest you look at the graphs from 2012 to 2019 and see if anything significant happened to the UK performance in June 2016. There was a jump in the FTSE World presumably due to the currency hit but that just undid an earlier fall. The graphs show me that the main divergence in returns actually started in 2013.

grumiofoundation

Another_Saver said:

grumiofoundation said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

Believing you have a method to determine future returns but then using an index fund(s) seems slightly odd to me? 

I do, that's why I use index funds, because I don't have the time or inclination to try and "fully" actively manage my portfolio or find someone who can. If you believe in the opposing hypothesis (short term trends indicating future returns), seems slightly odd that you wouldn't put all your money on Tesla or bitcoin?

I wasn't in any way suggesting that short term trends are a good indication to future returns.
The 2 hypotheses aren't the only options available - the option I was comparing to was just to follow the index (so ~5% in UK) because you believe you don't have any 'edge' at all.

My question was that if you believe you have a method for judging future returns (in your case based on academic research) then not deviating from the 'global index' at all seems somewhat counterintuitive. 

Edit: For example one option is posted below by (your nemesis) Bowlhead99 - although I see even when they agree with you get upset by this!!

bowlhead99 said:

grumiofoundation said:

Another_Saver said

Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

His comment isn't inconsistent with what he's saying though:
- if you're going 100% equities and don't feel confident in making a judgement call based on knowledge/ understanding/ academic research etc, buy a simple global index fund like the global all cap which doesn't have any special weighting one way or the other.
- whereas if you do have knowledge /understanding / and agree with academics on valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets, you might still use indexes but build your own portfolio and end up with a third international, a third FTSE 250, a third FTSE100 or whatever, looking at P/E or CAPE rather than market cap to split money between regions or sectors etc.

I suppose that is one of the options of that I meant (I put it badly maybe). I guess picking and mixing index fund(s) and thereby deviating from the global index is a degree of management, although not I suppose 'active management' involving picking individual stocks or specific funds...

Another_Saver

Linton said:

Another_Saver said:

Linton said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

With dividends reinvested, to nearest 5%
1995-1999: FTSE100 +170%  FTSE World +130%
2000-2004: FTSE100 -20%     FTSE World - 20%
2005-2009: FTSE100 +35%    FTSE World +40%
2010-2014: FTSE100 +45%    FTSE World+65%
2015-2019: FTSE100 +40%    FTSE World +80%

The FTSE World has outperformed the FTSE100 for about 15 years, and every 5 years has shown higher relative performance for the FTSE World than the previous 5 years for 20 years.  Pure chance or a long term trend?
I agree that the OP would be better off in the Vanguard Global All-cap fund

Time to break out the actual facts, not the adjusted facts to suit some people's feelings.

Since we're talking about the last 25 years, I've attached 6 pdfs generated on trustnet showing the FTSE 100 vs the FTSE World from 1/1/95-1/1/20, 1/1/95-date, 1/1/95-23/6/16 and 23/6/16-date, and two which add in the FTSE All World ex-US index from 2016-2020 and 2016-date.

It is plainly clear that the before the referendum, the UK and world indices behaved almost identically. You can see the FTSE 100 appearing to have an early dot com bubble because of the Asian boom and 1998 financial crisis, and rising faster during the 2003-07 bull run but crashing to the same trough, both due to the weight of financials.

For earlier data, IA Global goes back to 1/1/90, anything earlier than that all I can find for the UK/US is the Barclays Equity Gilts Study, multpl.com and dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/.

The "long term trend" has only appeared since the referendum and is largely explained by the current gulf in valuations (FTSE 100 CAPE ~12 vs ~22.5-24 for the total/developed world, VUKE PB 1.4 vs 2.2 for the Vanguard global all cap, 2.4 for VEVE and 2.5 for VDevWrdxUK as at 30/9/20 /ISF PB 1.33 vs 2.45 for IWDG as at 29/10/20).

If you believe that this is a long term trend, you should be overweighting the US.

People downtalk the UK as if the rest of the world doesn't have challenges.

I don't believe this is a repeat of the early 1970s crash, but maybe it will rhyme.

I look forward to being proven right soon enough

grumiofoundation said:

Another_Saver said:

dunstonh said:

1. If the UK is crap now

UK Large Cap has been crap for over 25 years.    Where the UK does well is small and mid cap. Although they have had a drag on them since the Brexit referendum but not as much as the UK general market.

1. If the UK is crap now and I'm already in it then staying in makes some sense even though I'm and avid 'you can't time the market' guy.... but...

If there are no cost issues or tax issues then you should be invested today in the same way you would be if you were putting the money in for the first time today.   No point waiting.

2. Monitor it until it goes up then switch to a cheaper than Vanguard, but like-for-like fund.

In the meantime, the alternative has gone up by more and you wish you had done it earlier.

In some people's opinions, but it hasn't been 25 years it's really just the last 4, although the same trend pops up if you set the start date to 2007. Personally I have more faith in peer-reviewed research about valuations being the best determinant of future returns in developed markets than I do in vague declinist sentiment and extrapolating short term trends, recent past performance and all that.
Arguably, keeping with LS100 would be a slightly riskier value play and if you don't feel confident enough in your knowledge and understanding of investing, then sticking with a simpler global index fund, such as the global all cap, is probably sensible.

If you have faith in academic research as the best determinant of future returns why don't you actively manage your portfolio (whether yourself or via a manager who presumably has access to the same research)?

Believing you have a method to determine future returns but then using an index fund(s) seems slightly odd to me? 

I do, that is why I use index funds.

The figures I gave are correct.

You seem to be making the classic mistake of looking at a linear graph  which makes recent growth appear much more significant than earier growth. Growth from 0 to100% looks the same as growth from 600% to 700%.  It is actually about 7 times as much. 
I suggest you look at the graphs from 2012 to 2019 and see if anything significant happened to the UK performance in June 2016. There was a jump in the FTSE World presumably due to the currency hit but that just undid an earlier fall. The graphs show me that the main divergence in returns actually started in 2013.

I suggest you don't make a classic mistake of looking at rolling 5 year periods rounded to the nearest 5%. I know how log scales work, I have a maths degree thanks.
Year-end 1958-74 the FT 30 then FTSE all share's price was flat, yet that was the best time to buy we've ever had, producing a 22.2% nominal, 14% real total return from 1/1/1975-1/1/2000, far ahead of the US' 16.9% and 11.5% over the same period (a selective date range, still helpful to illustrate the point).
So even if we argue over a 3 year difference of when this long term trend started, my point still stands.