Pension recovery performance 2020

westv

garmeg said:

Deleted_User said:

Audaxer said:

dunstonh said:

I just wondered what sort of performance people were experiencing with their pension investment during this tumultuous year. 

Apart from one month of falls which were quickly recovered, it has been a good year.  

Is this typical, above or below what people are generally seeing?

It depends on their risk profiles.   Our worst performance, for YTD, is the lowest risk at 4.62% and best performance is the highest risk at 33.85% with medium risk coming out at 18.69%.     

dunstonh, an 18.69% gain for this year to end November is a very good return for a medium risk portfolio. If you care to share, I'd be interested to know the percentage of equities to bonds and the percentages of growth equity to value equity for your medium risk portfolio?

This is more than S&P 500 YTD, much more than FTSE100 or the world market YTD and more than Buffett’s long term return.  And then there was his “aggressive” return which is much higher. If true, this is something fairly concentrated in US tech and not “medium risk”. Also, unsustainable.  If anyone within the financial industry could consistently deliver this kind of outperformance over a meaningful period of time, they would be multi-billionnairs. We often see claims like this from the vendors of financial services. 

i don't think dunstonh would lie. If those rates stated were achieved then I have no reason to doubt him (or her!).

Maybe the 18% figure is for the fees pot! 

itwasntme001

Deleted_User said:

Audaxer said:

dunstonh said:

I just wondered what sort of performance people were experiencing with their pension investment during this tumultuous year. 

Apart from one month of falls which were quickly recovered, it has been a good year.  

Is this typical, above or below what people are generally seeing?

It depends on their risk profiles.   Our worst performance, for YTD, is the lowest risk at 4.62% and best performance is the highest risk at 33.85% with medium risk coming out at 18.69%.     

dunstonh, an 18.69% gain for this year to end November is a very good return for a medium risk portfolio. If you care to share, I'd be interested to know the percentage of equities to bonds and the percentages of growth equity to value equity for your medium risk portfolio?

This is more than S&P 500 YTD, much more than FTSE100 or the world market YTD and more than Buffett’s long term return.  And then there was his “aggressive” return which is much higher. If true, this is something fairly concentrated in US tech and not “medium risk”. Also, unsustainable.  If anyone within the financial industry could consistently deliver this kind of outperformance over a meaningful period of time, they would be multi-billionnairs. We often see claims like this from the vendors of financial services. 

If a portfolio consists of just the various Ballie Gifford funds (as is usually recommended by some IFAs as part of ones portfolio), its not that difficult to think someone may have achieved a 30%+ return YTD.  Just holding the likes of SMT, Monks, GD etc would have amazing results.  I would probably re-categorize the labels though (if anything just to make me feel better ) so "high risk" should be "ultra high risk" and "medium risk" should be "high risk".

My portfolio is up 15% YTD for what I think is a "high risk" portfolio.  I have 20% of my portfolio in both VLS100 and a WP fund and these have done F-all this year compared to my positions in things like Monks, Fundsmith, Amazon and and Biotech Growth.

dunstonh

garmeg said:

Deleted_User said:

Audaxer said:

dunstonh said:

I just wondered what sort of performance people were experiencing with their pension investment during this tumultuous year. 

Apart from one month of falls which were quickly recovered, it has been a good year.  

Is this typical, above or below what people are generally seeing?

It depends on their risk profiles.   Our worst performance, for YTD, is the lowest risk at 4.62% and best performance is the highest risk at 33.85% with medium risk coming out at 18.69%.     

dunstonh, an 18.69% gain for this year to end November is a very good return for a medium risk portfolio. If you care to share, I'd be interested to know the percentage of equities to bonds and the percentages of growth equity to value equity for your medium risk portfolio?

This is more than S&P 500 YTD, much more than FTSE100 or the world market YTD and more than Buffett’s long term return.  And then there was his “aggressive” return which is much higher. If true, this is something fairly concentrated in US tech and not “medium risk”. Also, unsustainable.  If anyone within the financial industry could consistently deliver this kind of outperformance over a meaningful period of time, they would be multi-billionnairs. We often see claims like this from the vendors of financial services. 

i don't think dunstonh would lie. If those rates stated were achieved then I have no reason to doubt him (or her!).

It doesn't suit the agenda of the anti-IFA brigade to see IFA portfolios return more than their beloved options.  They don't bring it up when DIY investors get higher returns, as many do.  They just take issue when an IFA portfolio does (and many IFA portfolios do).

[Deleted User]

garmeg said:

Deleted_User said:

Audaxer said:

dunstonh said:

I just wondered what sort of performance people were experiencing with their pension investment during this tumultuous year. 

Apart from one month of falls which were quickly recovered, it has been a good year.  

Is this typical, above or below what people are generally seeing?

It depends on their risk profiles.   Our worst performance, for YTD, is the lowest risk at 4.62% and best performance is the highest risk at 33.85% with medium risk coming out at 18.69%.     

dunstonh, an 18.69% gain for this year to end November is a very good return for a medium risk portfolio. If you care to share, I'd be interested to know the percentage of equities to bonds and the percentages of growth equity to value equity for your medium risk portfolio?

This is more than S&P 500 YTD, much more than FTSE100 or the world market YTD and more than Buffett’s long term return.  And then there was his “aggressive” return which is much higher. If true, this is something fairly concentrated in US tech and not “medium risk”. Also, unsustainable.  If anyone within the financial industry could consistently deliver this kind of outperformance over a meaningful period of time, they would be multi-billionnairs. We often see claims like this from the vendors of financial services. 

i don't think dunstonh would lie. If those rates stated were achieved then I have no reason to doubt him (or her!).

I question why a financial advisor would even want to provide unrepresentative returns over a short period of time.  “Lying” is a strong word but we have seen lots of examples stretching the definition of “moderate”. 

And if these numbers are representative,  I also want to know how a “moderate” high cost portfolio outperforms the FTSE All World and S&P 500 by 5-10% and why is dunstonh labouring as a poor IFA rather than enjoying his winter palace on one of his multiple islands. 

randompenitent

Last 12 months - 16.8% for the SIPP and 29% for the ISA. I have zero confidence this will be repeated next year and it probably means I’m taking too much risk, but gratifying.
ISA is 100% equities - mostly Investment Trusts. No UK, growth rather than income. Pacific Horizon and HgCapital have been very successful this year.

SIPP is probably 80% equities, again mostly investment trusts, though I did have an S&P500 tracker until earlier this year when I decided that I was too exposed to tech.  Still have some Scottish Mortgage but biggest are Fundsmith and Personal Assets.
I’m scratching my head wondering about how to diversify away from equities. Holding cash isn’t very attractive and I’ve never invested in bonds or bond funds. Still trying to figure out the next approach.

Cus

16.5% ytd after fees. 65% equity, risk category 5. Not DIY. Most is in active funds, but some passive, and some single stocks. 

itwasntme001

Up 16.7% YTD as of today although the OEIC funds have obviously not been updated so a bit higher in reality.  On a 7-figure amount - the gain this year is well over 10x my normal annual spending.  Crazy.

itwasntme001

The real question is are people rebalancing to bring overextended exposures back in line or are they letting their winners run some more

[Deleted User]

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

Audaxer said:

dunstonh said:

I just wondered what sort of performance people were experiencing with their pension investment during this tumultuous year. 

Apart from one month of falls which were quickly recovered, it has been a good year.  

Is this typical, above or below what people are generally seeing?

It depends on their risk profiles.   Our worst performance, for YTD, is the lowest risk at 4.62% and best performance is the highest risk at 33.85% with medium risk coming out at 18.69%.     

dunstonh, an 18.69% gain for this year to end November is a very good return for a medium risk portfolio. If you care to share, I'd be interested to know the percentage of equities to bonds and the percentages of growth equity to value equity for your medium risk portfolio?

This is more than S&P 500 YTD, much more than FTSE100 or the world market YTD and more than Buffett’s long term return.  And then there was his “aggressive” return which is much higher. If true, this is something fairly concentrated in US tech and not “medium risk”. Also, unsustainable.  If anyone within the financial industry could consistently deliver this kind of outperformance over a meaningful period of time, they would be multi-billionnairs. We often see claims like this from the vendors of financial services. 

If a portfolio consists of just the various Ballie Gifford funds (as is usually recommended by some IFAs as part of ones portfolio), its not that difficult to think someone may have achieved a 30%+ return YTD.  Just holding the likes of SMT, Monks, GD etc would have amazing results.  I would probably re-categorize the labels though (if anything just to make me feel better ) so "high risk" should be "ultra high risk" and "medium risk" should be "high risk".

My portfolio is up 15% YTD for what I think is a "high risk" portfolio.  I have 20% of my portfolio in both VLS100 and a WP fund and these have done F-all this year compared to my positions in things like Monks, Fundsmith, Amazon and and Biotech Growth.

I agree, putting massive amounts into a small number of stocks like Tesla, Alibaba and Tencent (SMT), begs the question why the returns are so low.  It also begs the question “why do you need a fund? If thats your game, why not buy these shares direct?”

 And for all I know, this can easily continue for the next 5 years, but sooner or later this trade is going belly up. There is no place for such funds in anything calling itself “moderate”. 

itwasntme001

Deleted_User said:

itwasntme001 said:

Deleted_User said:

Audaxer said:

dunstonh said:

I just wondered what sort of performance people were experiencing with their pension investment during this tumultuous year. 

Apart from one month of falls which were quickly recovered, it has been a good year.  

Is this typical, above or below what people are generally seeing?

It depends on their risk profiles.   Our worst performance, for YTD, is the lowest risk at 4.62% and best performance is the highest risk at 33.85% with medium risk coming out at 18.69%.     

dunstonh, an 18.69% gain for this year to end November is a very good return for a medium risk portfolio. If you care to share, I'd be interested to know the percentage of equities to bonds and the percentages of growth equity to value equity for your medium risk portfolio?

This is more than S&P 500 YTD, much more than FTSE100 or the world market YTD and more than Buffett’s long term return.  And then there was his “aggressive” return which is much higher. If true, this is something fairly concentrated in US tech and not “medium risk”. Also, unsustainable.  If anyone within the financial industry could consistently deliver this kind of outperformance over a meaningful period of time, they would be multi-billionnairs. We often see claims like this from the vendors of financial services. 

If a portfolio consists of just the various Ballie Gifford funds (as is usually recommended by some IFAs as part of ones portfolio), its not that difficult to think someone may have achieved a 30%+ return YTD.  Just holding the likes of SMT, Monks, GD etc would have amazing results.  I would probably re-categorize the labels though (if anything just to make me feel better ) so "high risk" should be "ultra high risk" and "medium risk" should be "high risk".

My portfolio is up 15% YTD for what I think is a "high risk" portfolio.  I have 20% of my portfolio in both VLS100 and a WP fund and these have done F-all this year compared to my positions in things like Monks, Fundsmith, Amazon and and Biotech Growth.

I agree, putting massive amounts into a small number of stocks like Tesla, Alibaba and Tencent (SMT), begs the question why the returns are so low.  It also begs the question “why do you need a fund? If thats your game, why not buy these shares direct?”

 And for all I know, this can easily continue for the next 5 years, but sooner or later this trade is going belly up. There is no place for such funds in anything calling itself “moderate”. 

When you have an environment like we have today that favours growth stocks such as tech, your gonna get massive out performance from funds run by a fund house (BG) who seems to have a pretty concentrated strategy in growth.

Lowering the discount rate to 0%, you're gonna get wild fluctations in the share prices of companies who have high growth rates assumed in their pricing.  The question then becomes, at what point will they be fully valued, if not already.

As I said before, its all just market timing at the end of the day