Transferring out of Defined Benefit pension

BritishInvestor

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%.  

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%.  

"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? "
But Fidelity funds excludes emerging and small cap and HSBC small cap (at a glance) so would both have benefitted from the US large cap bubble.

Prism

Here are the 5 year trustnet stats on VLS 100. 
It is currently ranked 172 out of 258 funds in the IA Global sector - that is closer to 4th quartile than 2nd quartile. That doesn't include the global ETFs which have pretty much all beaten it. For reference HSBC FTSE All world is at 93.
Has the high number of holdings and home bias helped with volatility? It seems not being 164 out of 335. 

It doesn't get some special exception because its built to a methodology that should get better results than it has. It has to be compared against every other fund in its category. So far it has not done especially well. Maybe in the future it will.

Prism

BritishInvestor said:

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%.  

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%.  

"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? "
But Fidelity funds excludes emerging and small cap and HSBC small cap (at a glance) so would both have benefitted from the US large cap bubble.

It has barely made any difference over the last 5 years whether you include EM, small cap or dont.

itwasntme001

Prism said:

Here are the 5 year trustnet stats on VLS 100. 
It is currently ranked 172 out of 258 funds in the IA Global sector - that is closer to 4th quartile than 2nd quartile. That doesn't include the global ETFs which have pretty much all beaten it. For reference HSBC FTSE All world is at 93.
Has the high number of holdings and home bias helped with volatility? It seems not being 164 out of 335. 

It doesn't get some special exception because its built to a methodology that should get better results than it has. It has to be compared against every other fund in its category. So far it has not done especially well. Maybe in the future it will.

5 year stats?  LOL you have got to be kidding.

itwasntme001

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

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%.  

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%.  

"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? "
But Fidelity funds excludes emerging and small cap and HSBC small cap (at a glance) so would both have benefitted from the US large cap bubble.

It has barely made any difference over the last 5 years whether you include EM, small cap or dont.

How do you know it hasn't?

BritishInvestor

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

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%.  

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%.  

"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? "
But Fidelity funds excludes emerging and small cap and HSBC small cap (at a glance) so would both have benefitted from the US large cap bubble.

It has barely made any difference over the last 5 years whether you include EM, small cap or dont.

Over the last 8 years I'm seeing MSCI World at 191%, MSCI ACWI at 176 and FTSE Global All Cap at 175

Prism

itwasntme001 said:

Prism said:

Here are the 5 year trustnet stats on VLS 100. 
It is currently ranked 172 out of 258 funds in the IA Global sector - that is closer to 4th quartile than 2nd quartile. That doesn't include the global ETFs which have pretty much all beaten it. For reference HSBC FTSE All world is at 93.
Has the high number of holdings and home bias helped with volatility? It seems not being 164 out of 335. 

It doesn't get some special exception because its built to a methodology that should get better results than it has. It has to be compared against every other fund in its category. So far it has not done especially well. Maybe in the future it will.

5 year stats?  LOL you have got to be kidding.

If you are implying that 5 years is not enough time to appraise a fund then I agree - maybe we shouldn't be using VLS at all then since it has so little history.

Prism

itwasntme001 said:

Prism said:

It has barely made any difference over the last 5 years whether you include EM, small cap or dont.

How do you know it hasn't?

Because the returns tell me it hasn't

itwasntme001

Prism said:

itwasntme001 said:

Prism said:

It has barely made any difference over the last 5 years whether you include EM, small cap or dont.

How do you know it hasn't?

Because the returns tell me it hasn't

Which returns?  The evidence I see is that large cap US equities have outperformed small caps, EM, all other developed markets for the past 5 years.  So a tracker that has more US large cap will obviously out-perform a tracker with less.

Prism

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

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%.  

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%.  

"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? "
But Fidelity funds excludes emerging and small cap and HSBC small cap (at a glance) so would both have benefitted from the US large cap bubble.

It has barely made any difference over the last 5 years whether you include EM, small cap or dont.

Over the last 8 years I'm seeing MSCI World at 191%, MSCI ACWI at 176 and FTSE Global All Cap at 175

I didn't bother putting together a chart for 8 years. Trustnet gives me 5 years in an easy list.