Transferring out of Defined Benefit pension

zagfles

Prism said:

zagfles said:

dunstonh said:

VLS is a great vehicle. Far from the only one but dissing it is just wrong. 

So, you dont think other people should point out potential shortcomings in a particular investment fund but you can diss IFA portfolios all you like.      Talk about double standards.

Maybe you should read what is actually written instead of arguing against strawmen.

I think a few people on this thread need to re read some of their posts. VLS range does not equal VLS 100

VLS 100 is a historically poor performing expensive active global fund. VLS is fine.

So VLS 100 is an "expensive active fund" is it? Its charges are lower than most active funds. What level of charge would you say is cheap for an "active global fund"?

zagfles

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

VLS is a great vehicle. Far from the only one but dissing it is just wrong. 

So, you dont think other people should point out potential shortcomings in a particular investment fund but you can diss IFA portfolios all you like.      Talk about double standards.

You didn’t point any shortcomings. You just dissed a good product without any basis whatsoever.  Its a bit of a pattern, like when you make conclusions about VLS based on the recency bias or draw a meaningless 8-year  plot to impress the punters.  

The shortcomings have been pointed out on multiple threads before and by multiple people.  Of course, with you its never a problem when non IFAs do it.     And pointing out shortcomings is not dissing a product.
You really cannot stand it that other options have done better than VLS.   You just want to diss good options without any basis whatsoever to impress the anti-IFA haters.

Yeah but he's a "Vanguard fanboy" who "assumes that they are best for everything, all of the time." Apparently. That must also mean he hates all IFAs I guess. I'm not impressed

dunstonh

2. Anyone who buys any VLS product buys VLS 100.  VLS 80, 60, 40 - they all have VLS100 in varying proportions. You can play word games all you like but thats the reality. If VLS 100 is an under par product then so is VLS 40. 

VLS100 is very different to the rest of the VLS range as there is no bond content.   VLS20 through to 80 are multi-asset funds.  VLS100 is a global equity fund.     WIth VLS20 to 80 you compare it with other multi-asset funds.  With VLS100 you compare it with global equity funds.    VLS20 to 80 is a strong option when compared to other multi-asset funds.    VLS100 doesnt compare so well with other global equity funds.

You say its only not doing well recently and make accusations of using recency bias but how long are you going to string recency out for:

That is 5 discrete years that it hasn't made quartile 1 once.  Yes, it has suffered more in the last year but it wasn't a top option before that.
Since launch in 2011, it is up 161.71% compared to sector average of 159.34%.  It is just barely above the average fund in the sector.
Why would you pick VLS100 over, say, Fidelity Index world or  HSBC FTSE All World index which costs half as much and has had better returns? 

Here is another chart you will no doubt call meaningless.

Fidelity index world since launch in 2013 (on clean share class) has returned 187.55% vs VLS100 at 147.39%.  VLS100 was below the sector average of 157.22%.  

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

VLS is a great vehicle. Far from the only one but dissing it is just wrong. 

So, you dont think other people should point out potential shortcomings in a particular investment fund but you can diss IFA portfolios all you like.      Talk about double standards.

You didn’t point any shortcomings. You just dissed a good product without any basis whatsoever.  Its a bit of a pattern, like when you make conclusions about VLS based on the recency bias or draw a meaningless 8-year  plot to impress the punters.  

The shortcomings have been pointed out on multiple threads before and by multiple people.  Of course, with you its never a problem when non IFAs do it.     And pointing out shortcomings is not dissing a product.
You really cannot stand it that other options have done better than VLS.   You just want to diss good options without any basis whatsoever to impress the anti-IFA haters.

The only “shortcoming” you pointed out was that it does not use target volatility approach. That’s ludicrous. When an IFA says its not a good product, its dissing it. 

You are right though, I am far more concerned about bad investment advice when it comes from the financial industry.  In fact, we have a popular industry analyst who has a podcast called “bad investment advice”. Would you like to star? 

zagfles

dunstonh said:

2. Anyone who buys any VLS product buys VLS 100.  VLS 80, 60, 40 - they all have VLS100 in varying proportions. You can play word games all you like but thats the reality. If VLS 100 is an under par product then so is VLS 40. 

VLS100 is very different to the rest of the VLS range as there is no bond content.   VLS20 through to 80 are multi-asset funds.  VLS100 is a global equity fund.     WIth VLS20 to 80 you compare it with other multi-asset funds.  With VLS100 you compare it with global equity funds.    VLS20 to 80 is a strong option when compared to other multi-asset funds.    VLS100 doesnt compare so well with other global equity funds.

You say its only not doing well recently and make accusations of using recency bias but how long are you going to string recency out for:

That is 5 discrete years that it hasn't made quartile 1 once.  Yes, it has suffered more in the last year but it wasn't a top option before that.

So it's done better than the sector average over 5 years, despite the home bias.

Why would you pick VLS100 over, say, Fidelity World Index or  HSBC FTSE All World index which costs half as much and has had better returns? 

Perhaps because you think over 50% US isn't very diverse, even if it reflects market cap.

But that's been discussed earlier in the thread, you seem to prefer debating strawmen instead of what's actually written. It's probably because we're all Vangaurd fanboys who think nothing can ever beat it.

dunstonh

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

VLS is a great vehicle. Far from the only one but dissing it is just wrong. 

So, you dont think other people should point out potential shortcomings in a particular investment fund but you can diss IFA portfolios all you like.      Talk about double standards.

You didn’t point any shortcomings. You just dissed a good product without any basis whatsoever.  Its a bit of a pattern, like when you make conclusions about VLS based on the recency bias or draw a meaningless 8-year  plot to impress the punters.  

The shortcomings have been pointed out on multiple threads before and by multiple people.  Of course, with you its never a problem when non IFAs do it.     And pointing out shortcomings is not dissing a product.
You really cannot stand it that other options have done better than VLS.   You just want to diss good options without any basis whatsoever to impress the anti-IFA haters.

The only “shortcoming” you pointed out was that it does not use target volatility approach. That’s ludicrous. When an IFA says its not a good product, its dissing it. 

You are right though, I am far more concerned about bad investment advice when it comes from the financial industry.  In fact, we have a popular industry analyst who has a podcast called “bad investment advice”. Would you like to star? 

I think you are just making yourself look silly now.  
If someone was to post on this board, without mentioning any fund names, that they had an investment for the last 8 years that had underperformed sector average for that period and that an IFA had put it in place, you would be all over it like a rash criticising the IFA.     Yet you claim that something that is underperforming most managed funds, let alone passives, in a sector is a top of the range option.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

2. Anyone who buys any VLS product buys VLS 100.  VLS 80, 60, 40 - they all have VLS100 in varying proportions. You can play word games all you like but thats the reality. If VLS 100 is an under par product then so is VLS 40. 

VLS100 is very different to the rest of the VLS range as there is no bond content.   VLS20 through to 80 are multi-asset funds.  VLS100 is a global equity fund.     WIth VLS20 to 80 you compare it with other multi-asset funds.  With VLS100 you compare it with global equity funds.    VLS20 to 80 is a strong option when compared to other multi-asset funds.    VLS100 doesnt compare so well with other global equity funds.

You say its only not doing well recently and make accusations of using recency bias but how long are you going to string recency out for:

That is 5 discrete years that it hasn't made quartile 1 once.  Yes, it has suffered more in the last year but it wasn't a top option before that.
Since launch in 2011, it is up 161.71% compared to sector average of 159.34%.  It is just barely above the average fund in the sector.
Why would you pick VLS100 over, say, Fidelity Index world or  HSBC FTSE All World index which costs half as much and has had better returns? 

Here is another chart you will no doubt call meaningless.

Fidelity index world since launch in 2013 (on clean share class) has returned 187.55% vs VLS100 at 147.39%.  VLS100 was below the sector average of 157.22%.  

Various legitimate concepts routinely underperform for a decade or so. That happened to “small” in the last decade. And to value.  And to investments outside the US. VLS has more “small” and less “US”. Its not an actual deficiency.  You do not put a combination of trackers on a plot against another combination of trackers and say “product not good”. Thats not how you judge the quality of such products. Yes, you benchmark active funds against indices but comparing indices with each other and saying “underperformance “ shows lack of understanding. 

The silliness of your approach is highlighted when you take a fund which is 80% VLS100 and it suddenly becomes a great performer. 

dunstonh

Various legitimate concepts routinely underperform for a decade or so.

So, recency bias is multiple decades in your view then?

Yes, you benchmark active funds against indices but comparing indices with each other and saying “underperformance “ shows lack of understanding. 

I intentionally avoided using a managed fund as people using VLS100 usually do so because of the underlying passive funds.  They consider it a passive approach despite the management decisions in the weightings.   It would be unfair to pick the many more active funds that dont have underlying passives that have performed so much better.

The silliness of your approach is highlighted when you take a fund which is 80% VLS100 and it suddenly becomes a great performer. 

The silliness is you not factoring in the multiple asset classes that the rest of the range has and the impact of rebalancing.  And are you now suggesting all the other funds in the VLS range are rubbish? If so, are you not dissing them unfairly?

You have made it clear that you think it's better to be in a more expensive option that has consistently underperformed most of the funds in its sector.   I don't.    You said to Prism that "1. VLS 100 is not “performing poor”. So, perhaps your concept of what is poor/average/good/bad etc is different.

zagfles

dunstonh said:

Various legitimate concepts routinely underperform for a decade or so.

So, recency bias is multiple decades in your view then?

Yes, you benchmark active funds against indices but comparing indices with each other and saying “underperformance “ shows lack of understanding. 

I intentionally avoided using a managed fund as people using VLS100 usually do so because of the underlying passive funds.  They consider it a passive approach despite the management decisions in the weightings.   It would be unfair to pick the many more active funds that dont have underlying passives that have performed so much better.

The silliness of your approach is highlighted when you take a fund which is 80% VLS100 and it suddenly becomes a great performer. 

The silliness is you not factoring in the multiple asset classes that the rest of the range has and the impact of rebalancing.  And are you now suggesting all the other funds in the VLS range are rubbish? If so, are you not dissing them unfairly?

You have made it clear that you think it's better to be in a more expensive option that has consistently underperformed most of the funds in its sector.   I don't.     

Are you going for the record for the number of strawmen in a single post

Prism

zagfles said:

Prism said:

zagfles said:

dunstonh said:

VLS is a great vehicle. Far from the only one but dissing it is just wrong. 

So, you dont think other people should point out potential shortcomings in a particular investment fund but you can diss IFA portfolios all you like.      Talk about double standards.

Maybe you should read what is actually written instead of arguing against strawmen.

I think a few people on this thread need to re read some of their posts. VLS range does not equal VLS 100

VLS 100 is a historically poor performing expensive active global fund. VLS is fine.

So VLS 100 is an "expensive active fund" is it? Its charges are lower than most active funds. What level of charge would you say is cheap for an "active global fund"?

Missed a comma expensive, active.