Tool for knowing when to buy/sell?

Thrugelmir

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Not just the UK Government that issues bonds. Also there's UK index linked. Central bank buying of top quality grade corporate bonds has driven the returns on these extremely low as well. 

Not a question of fashionable. It's mathematical fact. Overall returns are likely to be lower as a consequence.

Type_45

Thrugelmir said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Not just the UK Government that issues bonds. Also there's UK index linked. Central bank buying of top quality grade corporate bonds has driven the returns on these extremely low as well. 

Not a question of fashionable. It's mathematical fact. Overall returns are likely to be lower as a consequence.

I'm approaching this as someone who thinks there will be a crash soon.

Ideally, I don't want bonds at all, hence I've been fully invested in VLS100. 

What I'm trying to do is to keep making money if possible, whilst also protecting my money from a crash.

This forum seems like the only place I come where people don't seem to think a crash is coming hard down the tracks. 

bostonerimus

Bobziz said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Wealth preservation funds ?

Wealth Preservation funds don't have any secret solution, they are just a particular style of multi-asset fund that can vary what they own. Right now CGT is  roughly 50/50, equity/bonds, and a lot of the bonds are inflation linked, presumably in anticipation of all the current stimulus releasing inflation.

underground99

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Not just the UK Government that issues bonds. Also there's UK index linked. Central bank buying of top quality grade corporate bonds has driven the returns on these extremely low as well. 

Not a question of fashionable. It's mathematical fact. Overall returns are likely to be lower as a consequence.

I'm approaching this as someone who thinks there will be a crash soon.

Ideally, I don't want bonds at all, hence I've been fully invested in VLS100. 

What I'm trying to do is to keep making money if possible, whilst also protecting my money from a crash.

This forum seems like the only place I come where people don't seem to think a crash is coming hard down the tracks. 

If you're holding VLS100 which could fall 50% over the course of a year or two, you're not protecting your money very well from a crash. 
There is always a crash coming at some point and you don't know when the next one will be. Conventional wisdom would say hold a variety of different asset types which aren't fully correlated with each other. If you don't want some of those types of assets because they won't make much money, so 'ideally' you would exclude them, you just need to consider where you stand on 'am I willing to not make as much money if things go up, so that the portfolio doesn't fall so far if things go down'.  Risk appetite and risk capacity is different for everyone.

Bobziz

I wonder how many investors that have experienced  a 50% + fall felt and reacted differently to what that had imagined they would. Difficult to accurately replicate the experience I guess. 

kinger101

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Not just the UK Government that issues bonds. Also there's UK index linked. Central bank buying of top quality grade corporate bonds has driven the returns on these extremely low as well. 

Not a question of fashionable. It's mathematical fact. Overall returns are likely to be lower as a consequence.

I'm approaching this as someone who thinks there will be a crash soon.

Ideally, I don't want bonds at all, hence I've been fully invested in VLS100. 

What I'm trying to do is to keep making money if possible, whilst also protecting my money from a crash.

This forum seems like the only place I come where people don't seem to think a crash is coming hard down the tracks. 

I doubt there's anyone on this forum who doesn't believe there will be a "hard" crash as some point in the future. What we don't know is how hard that crash might be, or exactly when it will happen.  Some people might make a pretty good guess but one in six of us would also correctly call how a die may roll.

All we can do is know when we anticipate needing our funds, or have a reasoned guess at what our attitude and tolerance to risk is (see Bobziz's point above).  Personally, being two decades from state retirement age and expecting to receive SP + DB which would at least keep me off the breadline and give me around two-thirds of my "OK" level of income, I'm happy to stick to 100 % equities for now.  I also do this knowing I'll be sticking much more money into the pot in the future that I've accumulation thus far, so a massive corrective tomorrow might not necessarily be a bad thing.  

Come up with an investment strategy suitable for your life circumstances and stick to it until they change.

Type_45

kinger101 said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Not just the UK Government that issues bonds. Also there's UK index linked. Central bank buying of top quality grade corporate bonds has driven the returns on these extremely low as well. 

Not a question of fashionable. It's mathematical fact. Overall returns are likely to be lower as a consequence.

I'm approaching this as someone who thinks there will be a crash soon.

Ideally, I don't want bonds at all, hence I've been fully invested in VLS100. 

What I'm trying to do is to keep making money if possible, whilst also protecting my money from a crash.

This forum seems like the only place I come where people don't seem to think a crash is coming hard down the tracks. 

I doubt there's anyone on this forum who doesn't believe there will be a "hard" crash as some point in the future. What we don't know is how hard that crash might be, or exactly when it will happen.  Some people might make a pretty good guess but one in six of us would also correctly call how a die may roll.

All we can do is know when we anticipate needing our funds, or have a reasoned guess at what our attitude and tolerance to risk is (see Bobziz's point above).  Personally, being two decades from state retirement age and expecting to receive SP + DB which would at least keep me off the breadline and give me around two-thirds of my "OK" level of income, I'm happy to stick to 100 % equities for now.  I also do this knowing I'll be sticking much more money into the pot in the future that I've accumulation thus far, so a massive corrective tomorrow might not necessarily be a bad thing.  

Come up with an investment strategy suitable for your life circumstances and stick to it until they change.

VLS 100 has gone up almost 10% in the past 6 months, which has been about £5k in my case. Can't argue with that.

eskbanker

Type_45 said:

VLS 100 has gone up almost 10% in the past 6 months, which has been about £5k in my case. Can't argue with that.

In one sense, no, it isn't possible to argue with factual data about past performance (although some on here could argue that black is white when they put their mind to it....).

However, much depends on what you're concluding from that performance - yes, of course results are positive when times are good but conversely a 100% equities fund will fall further than lower risk alternatives when market conditions are less benign, so the dialogue returns to whether it's suited to your objectives, timescales and risk tolerance....

kinger101

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:

VLS 100 has gone up almost 10% in the past 6 months, which has been about £5k in my case. Can't argue with that.

In one sense, no, it isn't possible to argue with factual data about past performance (although some on here could argue that black is white when they put their mind to it....).

If I took a white piece of paper into a completely darkened room, it would appear equally black when placed side by side with a black piece of paper.  At that point, white = black, therefore black = white. 
"Ah!", I hear you say. 
"But if I switched on the light, the white sheet of paper would appear white".  
Well, I'd argue that the light was white, not the paper.

***Disclaimer.  Needing to quarantine over the bank holiday weekend and being on my third glass of whisky makes me more mischievous than usual.  Please regard anything I post this evening as being complete and utter b*ll*cks rather than my usual standard of ill conceived and poorly communicated first-rate drivel.

AnotherJoe

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Type_45 said:

Thrugelmir said:

While the days of a 60/40 portfolio may not be over, the historic allocation is best described as being in "critical care".  Government bonds no longer fulfill the purpose they once did. 

VLS60 only has 5.41% of UK government bonds. 

I don't know how good the remaining 34.59% of the bonds are, however?

If the 60/40 split is no longer as fashionable, what's the alternative method?

Not just the UK Government that issues bonds. Also there's UK index linked. Central bank buying of top quality grade corporate bonds has driven the returns on these extremely low as well. 

Not a question of fashionable. It's mathematical fact. Overall returns are likely to be lower as a consequence.

I'm approaching this as someone who thinks there will be a crash soon.

Ideally, I don't want bonds at all, hence I've been fully invested in VLS100. 

What I'm trying to do is to keep making money if possible, whilst also protecting my money from a crash.

This forum seems like the only place I come where people don't seem to think a crash is coming hard down the tracks. 

How on earth do you reconcile those two?