Transferring out of Defined Benefit pension

Thrugelmir

zagfles said:

BritishInvestor said:

Deleted_User said:

BritishInvestor said:

itwasntme001 said:

dunstonh said:

Thus, a passive index tracker should form at least the core for any retail investor.

I go along with that.  Although that is because its the method I use.    Also, if you look at the propositions from firms that have active, passive and hybrid (both) you do tend to find the hybrid is the best in terms of returns.

And its not just advisable to stick to a tracker directly due to long term performance.

If that is your strategy and you want discrete mid table consistency then that is fine.   

t is to prevent adverse behaviour by retail investors that would otherwise be detrimental to returns. 

This comes down to the knowledge and understanding of the investor.  If you have a twitchy investor that moves about on a whim then they shouldn't really be near passives or managed.  They should just get in a multi-asset fund and leave the decision making well alone.

 

You are an IFA.  You would say all this.  Your opinion will always be biased about these matters.

Why would it be biased?

Vanguard has caused major shifts in the investment industry. They have been instrumental in driving the prices down. While most of the products I use come from other vendors, I acknowledge the role which Vanguard played in saving me hundreds of thousands of pounds. Vanguard could pose a more direct threat to IFAs if and when it decides to move into financial advice space in the UK. 

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious. With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Interesting, I know a fair number of IFAs that often use Vanguard funds (and consider Bogle a legend) as part of their portfolio, either building portfolios themselves or using the services of people like Tim Hale or Abraham Okunsanya.

I think they'd all welcome Vanguard PAS coming across the pond (no idea why it's taking so long) as they don't see it as a threat and want to see the bar raised for all offerings. 

Maybe it's a generational thing with the younger advisers focusing more on the planning side?

Probably more those who want to focus on the actual job of an IFA, rather than pretending to be a star fund manager with a secret recipe for better performance.

With passive tracking finally seemingly appearing to distort some markets. Never been a better time to have an active stance. No need to be star fund manager.  Just a competent one. 

zagfles

Thrugelmir said:

zagfles said:

BritishInvestor said:

Deleted_User said:

BritishInvestor said:

itwasntme001 said:

dunstonh said:

Thus, a passive index tracker should form at least the core for any retail investor.

I go along with that.  Although that is because its the method I use.    Also, if you look at the propositions from firms that have active, passive and hybrid (both) you do tend to find the hybrid is the best in terms of returns.

And its not just advisable to stick to a tracker directly due to long term performance.

If that is your strategy and you want discrete mid table consistency then that is fine.   

t is to prevent adverse behaviour by retail investors that would otherwise be detrimental to returns. 

This comes down to the knowledge and understanding of the investor.  If you have a twitchy investor that moves about on a whim then they shouldn't really be near passives or managed.  They should just get in a multi-asset fund and leave the decision making well alone.

 

You are an IFA.  You would say all this.  Your opinion will always be biased about these matters.

Why would it be biased?

Vanguard has caused major shifts in the investment industry. They have been instrumental in driving the prices down. While most of the products I use come from other vendors, I acknowledge the role which Vanguard played in saving me hundreds of thousands of pounds. Vanguard could pose a more direct threat to IFAs if and when it decides to move into financial advice space in the UK. 

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious. With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Interesting, I know a fair number of IFAs that often use Vanguard funds (and consider Bogle a legend) as part of their portfolio, either building portfolios themselves or using the services of people like Tim Hale or Abraham Okunsanya.

I think they'd all welcome Vanguard PAS coming across the pond (no idea why it's taking so long) as they don't see it as a threat and want to see the bar raised for all offerings. 

Maybe it's a generational thing with the younger advisers focusing more on the planning side?

Probably more those who want to focus on the actual job of an IFA, rather than pretending to be a star fund manager with a secret recipe for better performance.

With passive tracking finally seemingly appearing to distort some markets. Never been a better time to have an active stance. No need to be star fund manager.  Just a competent one. 

I've had a mainly active stance for years. Has served me well in general. I look for competant fund managers to manage my funds. That's their job.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious.

I don't think many advisers think this.          And robos have made no dent into IFAs business whatsoever.  There is no reason to think that Vanguard's offering would be any different.

 With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Transparency exists on active and passive.  You just have to read the stuff.  Most don't.   People using the Vanguard SIPP are typically DIY investors and not likely to use an IFA anyway.    However, it's little different to all those that use HL.    Yet a good number of those end up with solutions costing more than what an IFA would cost.    And a good number leave HL and return to advice later.

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Never heard of any IFA slagging off Vanguard.   Most I know use Vanguard funds.   

When an adviser starts touting how he is outperforming some RL funds over the last 8 years, it gives a strong indication that he thinks he is an investment manager. 

In my part of the world passive funds publish their holdings daily. Thats transparency.  Active funds do it quarterly. Everything is highly proprietary and confidential. Not so transparent, however much you read. 

Pretty sure there was an IFA on this forum who slagged Vanguards flagship products for the UK market. He used  meaningless recent performance numbers to do that. 

BritishInvestor

zagfles said:

BritishInvestor said:

Deleted_User said:

BritishInvestor said:

itwasntme001 said:

dunstonh said:

Thus, a passive index tracker should form at least the core for any retail investor.

I go along with that.  Although that is because its the method I use.    Also, if you look at the propositions from firms that have active, passive and hybrid (both) you do tend to find the hybrid is the best in terms of returns.

And its not just advisable to stick to a tracker directly due to long term performance.

If that is your strategy and you want discrete mid table consistency then that is fine.   

t is to prevent adverse behaviour by retail investors that would otherwise be detrimental to returns. 

This comes down to the knowledge and understanding of the investor.  If you have a twitchy investor that moves about on a whim then they shouldn't really be near passives or managed.  They should just get in a multi-asset fund and leave the decision making well alone.

 

You are an IFA.  You would say all this.  Your opinion will always be biased about these matters.

Why would it be biased?

Vanguard has caused major shifts in the investment industry. They have been instrumental in driving the prices down. While most of the products I use come from other vendors, I acknowledge the role which Vanguard played in saving me hundreds of thousands of pounds. Vanguard could pose a more direct threat to IFAs if and when it decides to move into financial advice space in the UK. 

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious. With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Interesting, I know a fair number of IFAs that often use Vanguard funds (and consider Bogle a legend) as part of their portfolio, either building portfolios themselves or using the services of people like Tim Hale or Abraham Okunsanya.

I think they'd all welcome Vanguard PAS coming across the pond (no idea why it's taking so long) as they don't see it as a threat and want to see the bar raised for all offerings. 

Maybe it's a generational thing with the younger advisers focusing more on the planning side?

Probably more those who want to focus on the actual job of an IFA, rather than pretending to be a star fund manager with a secret recipe for better performance.

True. One wonders how easy it must be for an IFA doing the job properly (and marketing themselves appropriately) to "rescue" clients from the "postman" style offerings....

BritishInvestor

Thrugelmir said:

zagfles said:

BritishInvestor said:

Deleted_User said:

BritishInvestor said:

itwasntme001 said:

dunstonh said:

Thus, a passive index tracker should form at least the core for any retail investor.

I go along with that.  Although that is because its the method I use.    Also, if you look at the propositions from firms that have active, passive and hybrid (both) you do tend to find the hybrid is the best in terms of returns.

And its not just advisable to stick to a tracker directly due to long term performance.

If that is your strategy and you want discrete mid table consistency then that is fine.   

t is to prevent adverse behaviour by retail investors that would otherwise be detrimental to returns. 

This comes down to the knowledge and understanding of the investor.  If you have a twitchy investor that moves about on a whim then they shouldn't really be near passives or managed.  They should just get in a multi-asset fund and leave the decision making well alone.

 

You are an IFA.  You would say all this.  Your opinion will always be biased about these matters.

Why would it be biased?

Vanguard has caused major shifts in the investment industry. They have been instrumental in driving the prices down. While most of the products I use come from other vendors, I acknowledge the role which Vanguard played in saving me hundreds of thousands of pounds. Vanguard could pose a more direct threat to IFAs if and when it decides to move into financial advice space in the UK. 

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious. With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Interesting, I know a fair number of IFAs that often use Vanguard funds (and consider Bogle a legend) as part of their portfolio, either building portfolios themselves or using the services of people like Tim Hale or Abraham Okunsanya.

I think they'd all welcome Vanguard PAS coming across the pond (no idea why it's taking so long) as they don't see it as a threat and want to see the bar raised for all offerings. 

Maybe it's a generational thing with the younger advisers focusing more on the planning side?

Probably more those who want to focus on the actual job of an IFA, rather than pretending to be a star fund manager with a secret recipe for better performance.

With passive tracking finally seemingly appearing to distort some markets. Never been a better time to have an active stance. No need to be star fund manager.  Just a competent one. 

Yesterday was a better time than today, and the day before even better. Active managers are outgunned these days, and it gets harder and harder for them each day.

Maybe there should be a James Randii style organisation (didn't realise he had passed away - RIP) looking for evidence of genuine outperformance. 

dunstonh

When an adviser starts touting how he is outperforming some RL funds over the last 8 years, it gives a strong indication that he thinks he is an investment manager. 

What absolute tosh.     There is a world of difference between an investment manager and selecting investment funds.

Pretty sure there was an IFA on this forum who slagged Vanguards flagship products for the UK market. He used  meaningless recent performance numbers to do that. 

Haven't seen any IFA do that.   Please provide your evidence that Vanguard was slagged off.

Your problem is that as Vanguard fanboy, you assume that they are best for everything, all of the time.     You cannot stand that other people, whether advisers or DIY investors, have alternative options that work for them and have led to better outcomes than VLS.     And ironically, many of those work on a similar basis to VLS except they use whole of market funds to fill the weightings rather than being tied to one fund house.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

When an adviser starts touting how he is outperforming some RL funds over the last 8 years, it gives a strong indication that he thinks he is an investment manager. 

What absolute tosh.     There is a world of difference between an investment manager and selecting investment funds.

Pretty sure there was an IFA on this forum who slagged Vanguards flagship products for the UK market. He used  meaningless recent performance numbers to do that. 

Haven't seen any IFA do that.   Please provide your evidence that Vanguard was slagged off.

Your problem is that as Vanguard fanboy, you assume that they are best for everything, all of the time.     You cannot stand that other people, whether advisers or DIY investors, have alternative options that work for them and have led to better outcomes than VLS.     And ironically, many of those work on a similar basis to VLS except they use whole of market funds to fill the weightings rather than being tied to one fund house.

Yes, we agree. Plotting some curves vs some RL funds over an 8 year period = absolute tosh. 

Re Vanguard... Who said:  “I bet many of those using VLS100 would refer to it as a tracker though.   It's not a very good global fund either.   Q4 in 2020, Q3 in 2019.   Even cumulatively it is Q3 over most periods.”? I’ve seen the same IFA make statements to this effect on more than one occasion.  Note, you provided zero evidence that its a bad global fund. VLS holds a wider spectrum of small and non-US companies than some of the alternatives. Thats not a bad thing at all.  Periods of under and over-performance are to be expected.  

“ Your problem is that as Vanguard fanboy, you assume that they are best for everything, all of the time.”  Is that so? Is that why most of my actual holdings are non-Vanguard?  In the real world there are several good ways of implementing one’s investment policy. Van consistently offers good solutions but its never the only one. Saying “VLS is not very good” = baseless slagging. 

zagfles

dunstonh said:

Haven't seen any IFA do that.   Please provide your evidence that Vanguard was slagged off.

Your problem is that as Vanguard fanboy, you assume that they are best for everything, all of the time.     You cannot stand that other people, whether advisers or DIY investors, have alternative options that work for them and have led to better outcomes than VLS.     And ironically, many of those work on a similar basis to VLS except they use whole of market funds to fill the weightings rather than being tied to one fund house.

Haven't seen Mordko or even anyone else says that. Please provide evidence that he "assumes that they are best for everything, all of the time".

Thrugelmir

BritishInvestor said:

Thrugelmir said:

zagfles said:

BritishInvestor said:

Deleted_User said:

BritishInvestor said:

itwasntme001 said:

dunstonh said:

Thus, a passive index tracker should form at least the core for any retail investor.

I go along with that.  Although that is because its the method I use.    Also, if you look at the propositions from firms that have active, passive and hybrid (both) you do tend to find the hybrid is the best in terms of returns.

And its not just advisable to stick to a tracker directly due to long term performance.

If that is your strategy and you want discrete mid table consistency then that is fine.   

t is to prevent adverse behaviour by retail investors that would otherwise be detrimental to returns. 

This comes down to the knowledge and understanding of the investor.  If you have a twitchy investor that moves about on a whim then they shouldn't really be near passives or managed.  They should just get in a multi-asset fund and leave the decision making well alone.

 

You are an IFA.  You would say all this.  Your opinion will always be biased about these matters.

Why would it be biased?

Vanguard has caused major shifts in the investment industry. They have been instrumental in driving the prices down. While most of the products I use come from other vendors, I acknowledge the role which Vanguard played in saving me hundreds of thousands of pounds. Vanguard could pose a more direct threat to IFAs if and when it decides to move into financial advice space in the UK. 

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious. With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Interesting, I know a fair number of IFAs that often use Vanguard funds (and consider Bogle a legend) as part of their portfolio, either building portfolios themselves or using the services of people like Tim Hale or Abraham Okunsanya.

I think they'd all welcome Vanguard PAS coming across the pond (no idea why it's taking so long) as they don't see it as a threat and want to see the bar raised for all offerings. 

Maybe it's a generational thing with the younger advisers focusing more on the planning side?

Probably more those who want to focus on the actual job of an IFA, rather than pretending to be a star fund manager with a secret recipe for better performance.

With passive tracking finally seemingly appearing to distort some markets. Never been a better time to have an active stance. No need to be star fund manager.  Just a competent one. 

Yesterday was a better time than today, and the day before even better. Active managers are outgunned these days, and it gets harder and harder for them each day.

Performance is better measured over at least 3 years than just 2 days.  Dumb money appears to be driving some markets. 

BritishInvestor

Thrugelmir said:

BritishInvestor said:

Thrugelmir said:

zagfles said:

BritishInvestor said:

Deleted_User said:

BritishInvestor said:

itwasntme001 said:

dunstonh said:

Thus, a passive index tracker should form at least the core for any retail investor.

I go along with that.  Although that is because its the method I use.    Also, if you look at the propositions from firms that have active, passive and hybrid (both) you do tend to find the hybrid is the best in terms of returns.

And its not just advisable to stick to a tracker directly due to long term performance.

If that is your strategy and you want discrete mid table consistency then that is fine.   

t is to prevent adverse behaviour by retail investors that would otherwise be detrimental to returns. 

This comes down to the knowledge and understanding of the investor.  If you have a twitchy investor that moves about on a whim then they shouldn't really be near passives or managed.  They should just get in a multi-asset fund and leave the decision making well alone.

 

You are an IFA.  You would say all this.  Your opinion will always be biased about these matters.

Why would it be biased?

Vanguard has caused major shifts in the investment industry. They have been instrumental in driving the prices down. While most of the products I use come from other vendors, I acknowledge the role which Vanguard played in saving me hundreds of thousands of pounds. Vanguard could pose a more direct threat to IFAs if and when it decides to move into financial advice space in the UK. 

Also, some advisers perceive themselves as investment managers (in reality this is the function of fund managers) and simple passive solutions  make the redundancy of IFAs in this space very obvious. With active funds an IFA can claim some secret superior knowledge of the fund. With an index everything is open and transparent. People using Vanguard SIPP and products are less likely to be using an IFA on an ongoing basis. 

Having said all this, there are certainly reasonable IFAs who do not slag Vanguard and focus on value added services. 

Interesting, I know a fair number of IFAs that often use Vanguard funds (and consider Bogle a legend) as part of their portfolio, either building portfolios themselves or using the services of people like Tim Hale or Abraham Okunsanya.

I think they'd all welcome Vanguard PAS coming across the pond (no idea why it's taking so long) as they don't see it as a threat and want to see the bar raised for all offerings. 

Maybe it's a generational thing with the younger advisers focusing more on the planning side?

Probably more those who want to focus on the actual job of an IFA, rather than pretending to be a star fund manager with a secret recipe for better performance.

With passive tracking finally seemingly appearing to distort some markets. Never been a better time to have an active stance. No need to be star fund manager.  Just a competent one. 

Yesterday was a better time than today, and the day before even better. Active managers are outgunned these days, and it gets harder and harder for them each day.

Performance is better measured over at least 3 years than just 2 days.  Dumb money appears to be driving some markets. 

Maybe, but I've not seen evidence of retail offerings consistently exploiting this.