Tool for knowing when to buy/sell?

whatstheplan

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....).

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....

My take on things (remember I'm still learning before you jump all over me!) is you can't have it all ways.  I only started investing this year (work pension aside) aged 49 and, as per my other posts, have instigated a 'retire earlier' plan.  Hopefully this'll see me retire at 59-60 as oppose to 65-67 ... however 'if' my investments don't perform as hoped I have my plan b position of continuing to work beyond 60.  I'm all in with VLS100 at present but already looking to switch due to better performing products.

Ok I'll get to the point.  In an ideal world e.g. if I was 20 years younger, I would very likely take a lower risk approach e.g. 60/40 or whatever, based on the premise of slower growth but having longer to let the investment grow, if that makes sense.  Whereas, because of what I'm aiming to achieve, I'm accepting a greater risk by going 100% equity to try and maximise growth over the next decade.

Stating the obvious, it'll either pan out as planned or it won't.  However on balance I'm more comfortable having my hard-earned work for me as oppose to sitting in a bank account doing nothing.   

Type_45

whatstheplan said:

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....).

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....

My take on things (remember I'm still learning before you jump all over me!) is you can't have it all ways.  I only started investing this year (work pension aside) aged 49 and, as per my other posts, have instigated a 'retire earlier' plan.  Hopefully this'll see me retire at 59-60 as oppose to 65-67 ... however 'if' my investments don't perform as hoped I have my plan b position of continuing to work beyond 60.  I'm all in with VLS100 at present but already looking to switch due to better performing products.

Ok I'll get to the point.  In an ideal world e.g. if I was 20 years younger, I would very likely take a lower risk approach e.g. 60/40 or whatever, based on the premise of slower growth but having longer to let the investment grow, if that makes sense.  Whereas, because of what I'm aiming to achieve, I'm accepting a greater risk by going 100% equity to try and maximise growth over the next decade.

Stating the obvious, it'll either pan out as planned or it won't.  However on balance I'm more comfortable having my hard-earned work for me as oppose to sitting in a bank account doing nothing.   

I can fully understand your logic. (Although there's also logic in doing 100% equities if you were much younger, too, as you'd have ample time to claw back losses).

Which better performing alternatives to VLS100 are you looking at?

Malthusian

steampowered said:

Then it was 2016 with Brexit and Trump. 
I forget why people were predicting a crash in 2018-2019 but I'm sure they were.

They were warning that when you considered the ongoing terrible safety standards of food markets in China and other nations, and the warning signs of the 2002 SARS outbreak, it was very likely that a new and more transmissable variant of SARS-CoV would make the jump to humans and spread across the world before public health officials could contain it. And that when you considered the timeframe since the Spanish flu pandemic we could realistically expect this to happen in the next couple of years.

Nah, I'm just kidding. Nobody said that, they were still banging on about Trump and Brexit. (2018 was a lousy year for markets, although not bad enough to be called as a crash, so there wasn't much need for doom-mongering.)

Of course a lot of people were saying for years that it was only a matter of time until the world faced another pandemic, just as from 2002 - 2008 lots of people were warning that the sub prime debt bubble was unsustainable. What virtually nobody did was call the exact moment of the pop correctly. Those who did got Hollywood movies made about them.

Quite a few doommongers had given up in 2019 and entered the markets to try to put an end to the amount of money they were losing. 2019 was the point at which there were the fewest doommongers warning of a crash; that's why it was the top of the market.

Then Covid hit and they cashed out a year later, screaming that they were right all along and the stockmarket is a scam.

eskbanker

Type_45 said:

Which better performing alternatives to VLS100 are you looking at?

It's always questionable whether it's sensible to revise investment strategy just by looking at past performance figures, but when considering strategy there are plenty of other options via which to invest 100% in equities within a single product without going down the VLS100 route:

1. VLS's well-known bias towards UK-listed companies differs from most of its competitors - home bias is a perfectly legitimate approach but many would choose to weight purely by global market capitalisation.
2. To extend that point, VLS entails active management decisions about which markets to invest in, whereas there are plenty of unadjusted wholly passive index trackers.
3. Market selection is also a differentiator, with some global funds focusing on developed markets, while others also include emerging ones.
4. Capitalisation is another variation, where some indices (and therefore their trackers) are oriented towards large and/or mid-cap equities, while others encompass small caps too.
5. Last, and often least, is the cost - VLS's OCF of 0.22% isn't hideous but global equities funds can be secured for closer to 0.1%.

Naturally there's no right or wrong answer, but IMHO the investor would be well advised to consider the above dimensions rather than just looking at past performance....

whatstheplan

Type_45 said:

whatstheplan said:

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....).

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....

My take on things (remember I'm still learning before you jump all over me!) is you can't have it all ways.  I only started investing this year (work pension aside) aged 49 and, as per my other posts, have instigated a 'retire earlier' plan.  Hopefully this'll see me retire at 59-60 as oppose to 65-67 ... however 'if' my investments don't perform as hoped I have my plan b position of continuing to work beyond 60.  I'm all in with VLS100 at present but already looking to switch due to better performing products.

Ok I'll get to the point.  In an ideal world e.g. if I was 20 years younger, I would very likely take a lower risk approach e.g. 60/40 or whatever, based on the premise of slower growth but having longer to let the investment grow, if that makes sense.  Whereas, because of what I'm aiming to achieve, I'm accepting a greater risk by going 100% equity to try and maximise growth over the next decade.

Stating the obvious, it'll either pan out as planned or it won't.  However on balance I'm more comfortable having my hard-earned work for me as oppose to sitting in a bank account doing nothing.   

I can fully understand your logic. (Although there's also logic in doing 100% equities if you were much younger, too, as you'd have ample time to claw back losses).

Which better performing alternatives to VLS100 are you looking at?

FTSE Developed World ex UK Equity Index Fund

However I realise this leaves me with 0% UK exposure.  That doesn't necessarily bother me as I have another £20k to invest this year and will look to address this.  No firm decisions made as yet.

Type_45

eskbanker said:

Type_45 said:

Which better performing alternatives to VLS100 are you looking at?

It's always questionable whether it's sensible to revise investment strategy just by looking at past performance figures, but when considering strategy there are plenty of other options via which to invest 100% in equities within a single product without going down the VLS100 route:

1. VLS's well-known bias towards UK-listed companies differs from most of its competitors - home bias is a perfectly legitimate approach but many would choose to weight purely by global market capitalisation.
2. To extend that point, VLS entails active management decisions about which markets to invest in, whereas there are plenty of unadjusted wholly passive index trackers.
3. Market selection is also a differentiator, with some global funds focusing on developed markets, while others also include emerging ones.
4. Capitalisation is another variation, where some indices (and therefore their trackers) are oriented towards large and/or mid-cap equities, while others encompass small caps too.
5. Last, and often least, is the cost - VLS's OCF of 0.22% isn't hideous but global equities funds can be secured for closer to 0.1%.

Naturally there's no right or wrong answer, but IMHO the investor would be well advised to consider the above dimensions rather than just looking at past performance....

Thank you for this. I will be exploring some options shortly.

sevenhills

Type_45 said:

So the UK can be £5tn in debt, and it makes no difference?
£10tn?
£20tn?
Where does it end?
What's the logical conclusion to never-ending debt, year on year?

Government spending is much more important than Government debt. High Government debt will mean that they spend a few million less due to the interest payments. But that could be outweighed by a spendthrift Government.

I have sold my shares in BT today, because I am 20% up and its been a steep increase.

Type_45

sevenhills said:

Type_45 said:

So the UK can be £5tn in debt, and it makes no difference?
£10tn?
£20tn?
Where does it end?
What's the logical conclusion to never-ending debt, year on year?

Government spending is much more important than Government debt. High Government debt will mean that they spend a few million less due to the interest payments. But that could be outweighed by a spendthrift Government.

I have sold my shares in BT today, because I am 20% up and its been a steep increase.

Were those the only shares you held?  20% over what time frame?

sevenhills

Type_45 said:

Were those the only shares you held?  20% over what time frame?

I have held them for less than 6 months, I have more than 10 different holdings.