Transferring out of Defined Benefit pension

[Deleted User]

Prism said:

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.

One can disagree with the white papers on home bias, but we need to be a bit more specific than “its marketing”.  Everyone selects their own approach but Van provided lots of data on risk/return, efficient frontier, currency and other considerations. The products are built around their research.  

Its ok to say “I am just going to be world cap weighted” because its my gut feel or preference or I am planning to retire in Mexico or whatever, but that does not negate the analysis. 

As for costs... You can certainly cut 0.1% or so by sacrificing simplicity.  I am really not sure UK has a comparable “fund of funds” product though with similar level of diversification.  The other products tend to cut out more expensive segments of the market.  For someone who wants to go on an autopilot this is good value. 

If you want dynamically managed allocations you certainly have to look elsewhere but there is zero evidence this has any advantages. In general, the  proportion of fixed income should reflect personal objectives rather than attempt to time the market. 

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

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

I haven't and never said I had.

You said: “ have used VLS with millions of pounds.  ” and “ VLS100... It's not a very good global fund either.”

dunstonh

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

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

I haven't and never said I had.

You said: “ have used VLS with millions of pounds.  ” and “ VLS100... It's not a very good global fund either.”

I did indeed say that and it is correct.  But that is different to what you are claiming I said in your earlier post.

If you want dynamically managed allocations you certainly have to look elsewhere but there is zero evidence this has any advantages. In general, the  proportion of fixed income should reflect personal objectives rather than attempt to time the market. 

There is zero evidence that it has any disadvantages.    Allocation adjustments based on maintaining a target volatility range and using long term data is very common.  VLS doesn't do it as it's not a risk targetted fund.  It has a rigid equity/bond ratio.  HSBC, Architas, Blackrock (on their latest version), L&G all do it.

Whether you like it or not, it is a valid investment strategy with structure and process.  And whether your structure and process requires you to have a consistent allocation for the rest of your life or have more fluid allocations, that does not really matter.    The fact you have a structure and process that is viable either way is what matters.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

Deleted_User said:

dunstonh said:

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

I haven't and never said I had.

You said: “ have used VLS with millions of pounds.  ” and “ VLS100... It's not a very good global fund either.”

I did indeed say that and it is correct.  But that is different to what you are claiming I said in your earlier post.

If you want dynamically managed allocations you certainly have to look elsewhere but there is zero evidence this has any advantages. In general, the  proportion of fixed income should reflect personal objectives rather than attempt to time the market. 

There is zero evidence that it has any disadvantages.    Allocation adjustments based on maintaining a target volatility range and using long term data is very common.  VLS doesn't do it as it's not a risk targetted fund.  It has a rigid equity/bond ratio.  HSBC, Architas, Blackrock (on their latest version), L&G all do it.

Whether you like it or not, it is a valid investment strategy with structure and process.  And whether your structure and process requires you to have a consistent allocation for the rest of your life or have more fluid allocations, that does not really matter.    The fact you have a structure and process that is viable either way is what matters.

There are lots and lots of different investment strategies. Momentum, value, quality, target volatility, you name it.  Not one of them translates to VLS 100 being a no good global fund. People like to mess with their portfolios. It translates to long periods of under and over performance.   What matters in the end of the day is simple:
- staying invested
- diversification 
- low costs
VLS is a great vehicle. Far from the only one but dissing it is just wrong. 

dunstonh

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.

zagfles

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.

Prism

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.

[Deleted User]

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 out 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.  

dunstonh

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Completely false on two counts:

1. VLS 100 is not “performing poor”.  VLS 100 is a combination of indices minus a small fee.  The way you measure performance of a fund like this is by measuring a tracking error. Its been negligible. VLS implements its concept really well.  Periods of out and underperformance  for various indices vs each other are completely normal, sometimes for decades. And returns for VLS100 have been very good over a short period of its existence. 

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.