Transferring out of Defined Benefit pension

dunstonh

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

Comparing like for like in context was perfectly fine.   If I had put VLS on that grid you wouldn't have questioned it.

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.  How is that slagging off Vanguard?

“ 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. Pointing out how VLS100 is not a strong option compared to the others is not slagging off Vanguard.   
You say there are several good ways of implementing an investment policy but it appears from your posts that you exclude IFAs from doing it.    So, just baseless slagging of IFAs for no reason.   

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

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

Comparing like for like in context was perfectly fine.   If I had put VLS on that grid you wouldn't have questioned it.

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.  

How is that slagging off Vanguard?

“ 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. 

Pointing out how VLS100 is not a strong option compared to the others is not slagging off Vanguard.   
You say there are several good ways of implementing an investment policy but it appears from your posts that you exclude IFAs from doing it.    So, just baseless slagging of IFAs for no reason.   

You have no basis to say that VLS is a bad option. Thats an unsupported and blatantly biased claim. 
I do not exclude IFAs as an option for implementing an investment policy. If its a good IFA and the individual can’t be bothered to educate him/herself then an IFA is the way to go. 

Also think that one-off advice is a good thing to have in many cases. 

zagfles

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

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

Comparing like for like in context was perfectly fine.   If I had put VLS on that grid you wouldn't have questioned it.

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.  

How is that slagging off Vanguard?

“ 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. 

Pointing out how VLS100 is not a strong option compared to the others is not slagging off Vanguard.   
You say there are several good ways of implementing an investment policy but it appears from your posts that you exclude IFAs from doing it.    So, just baseless slagging of IFAs for no reason.   

You have no basis to say that VLS is a bad option. Thats an unsupported and blatantly biased claim. 
I do not exclude IFAs as an option for implementing an investment policy. If its a good IFA and the individual can’t be bothered to educate him/herself then an IFA is the way to go. 

Finding a good IFA is probably as hard as finding a good fund manager! Could do some basic checks, eg for any ombudsman decisions

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/ombudsman-decisions

Thrugelmir

BritishInvestor said:

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.

No one is going to give you a free lunch. Active investments require active decisions. Less about how the fund actually performs and more about the actual profit one can bank, from exploiting opportunties from the companies held within. 

dunstonh

You have no basis to say that VLS is a bad option. Thats an unsupported and blatantly biased claim. 

That is absolutely ridiculous.   At no point have I said that VLS is a bad option.  I have used VLS with millions of pounds.    I have offered the opinion that VLS100 is not a very good global fund but that does not equate to it being a bad option.   Very good being top of the scale and there are plenty of ways of describing those below before you get to the bad options.   And pointing out limitations of one fund does not equate to slagging off the fund house which was your claim in the earlier post.
The only person making unsupported and blatantly biased claims here is you.

I do not exclude IFAs as an option for implementing an investment policy. 

Yet your posts frequently suggest otherwise.

zagfles

dunstonh said:
The only person making unsupported and blatantly biased claims here is you.

Hmm. Who wrote "Your problem is that as Vanguard fanboy, you assume that they are best for everything, all of the time."

I don't think you're actually in much disagreement about Vanguard, if you read what he actually wrote instead of arguing against your strawman.

BritishInvestor

Thrugelmir said:

BritishInvestor said:

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.

No one is going to give you a free lunch. Active investments require active decisions. Less about how the fund actually performs and more about the actual profit one can bank, from exploiting opportunties from the companies held within. 

I would suggest free lunch vouchers haven't been available to fund managers, nor those that purchase them for many, many years.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

You have no basis to say that VLS is a bad option. Thats an unsupported and blatantly biased claim. 

That is absolutely ridiculous.   At no point have I said that VLS is a bad option.  I have used VLS with millions of pounds.    I have offered the opinion that VLS100 is not a very good global fund but that does not equate to it being a bad option.   Very good being top of the scale and there are plenty of ways of describing those below before you get to the bad options.   And pointing out limitations of one fund does not equate to slagging off the fund house which was your claim in the earlier post.
The only person making unsupported and blatantly biased claims here is you.

I do not exclude IFAs as an option for implementing an investment policy. 

Yet your posts frequently suggest otherwise.

What exactly was your objective when repeating that VLS100 is “not a good” global fund? Also, what is your basis for making such claims? Do you think recent results for different investments by themselves are sufficient to declare something as “not good”? Do you have an ideological disagreement with having some home bias or small international companies in your portfolio? What makes a “good” global fund? What else? Vanguard published their justification for VLS build-up.  What’s wrong with it? Support your claims.  Also, why have you invested millions of client’s pounds into something that is “not good”? 

Prism

I read Vanguard's piece on equity home bias and didn't agree. It felt like an article commissioned to fit the marketing - which is that they think people want home bias so they gave them home bias. I also don't think fixed equity/bond allocations is necessary and is inflexible. Finally the price feels a touch high nowadays.

All in all if someone is asking for a multi asset I tend to point them elsewhere if only to give a little more choice.

dunstonh

Also, why have you invested millions of client’s pounds into something that is “not good”? 

I haven't and never said I had.