After managing my own investments for 20 years i'm finding it to time consuming doing all the DD.

Thrugelmir

Eco_Miser said:

swleventhal said:

Interesting point made though on losing money if a platform goes into administration. Is the money not invested in the funds rather than the platform company?

The money is still there in the funds (unless it isn't), but there could be a long wait while the administrators sort everything before you can trade again. See SVS Securities thread for a particularly bad example.

SVS wasn't your standard well established platform. Not the place for the average retail investor to have choosen to transact business through. 

dunstonh

SVS failed, not because of its platform but becomes of its in-house investment portfolios going bad and too much of its business relying on that.  It specialised in niche, high risk illiquid and often unregulated investments.     All that things a typical retail consumer should be avoiding.  So, as mentioned above, do not use SVS as an example of a mainstream platform.     However, there are other platforms that do have levels of illiquid assets that could be concerning depending on your views about risk.  I personally would avoid them as it's not necessary to go away from the mainstream to use them.   Different people may have different views.

Eco_Miser

Linton said:

Eco_Miser said:

swleventhal said:

Interesting point made though on losing money if a platform goes into administration. Is the money not invested in the funds rather than the platform company?

The money is still there in the funds (unless it isn't), but there could be a long wait while the administrators sort everything before you can trade again. See SVS Securities thread for a particularly bad example.

SVS isnt a typical example.  They specialised in illiquid investments that could not readily be transferred elsewhere.

I know, I said it was a bad example.

However it does illustrate that investors eventually get their money back, and that there is a period when the investments can't be accessed.

Thrugelmir

Eco_Miser said:

Linton said:

Eco_Miser said:

swleventhal said:

Interesting point made though on losing money if a platform goes into administration. Is the money not invested in the funds rather than the platform company?

The money is still there in the funds (unless it isn't), but there could be a long wait while the administrators sort everything before you can trade again. See SVS Securities thread for a particularly bad example.

SVS isnt a typical example.  They specialised in illiquid investments that could not readily be transferred elsewhere.

I know, I said it was a bad example.

However it does illustrate that investors eventually get their money back, and that there is a period when the investments can't be accessed.

Beauford Securities was similar. Again a provider off the beaten track that retail investors would have been enticed to apply and trade through by some exotic money making offering.  

pip895

You could stay with HL and transfer your investments into a simple ETF portfolio which would cap your charges from HL to £45 + a few dealing fees.  

At its simplest you could go for a world tracker say HMWO & a bond fund say VAGS.  It would take minutes to set up, be diversified and simple - look at it once a year!

Splitting it into three seems unnecessarily complicated. 

Thrugelmir

pip895 said:

You could stay with HL and transfer your investments into a simple ETF portfolio which would cap your charges from HL to £45 + a few dealing fees.  

At its simplest you could go for a world tracker say HMWO & a bond fund say VAGS.  It would take minutes to set up, be diversified and simple - look at it once a year!

Splitting it into three seems unnecessarily complicated. 

Personally I'd prefer a far more diversified portfolio with £400k to be invested. Something that accords with personal objectives as well. VAGS short term performance isn't great. 

pip895

Thrugelmir said:

pip895 said:

You could stay with HL and transfer your investments into a simple ETF portfolio which would cap your charges from HL to £45 + a few dealing fees.  

At its simplest you could go for a world tracker say HMWO & a bond fund say VAGS.  It would take minutes to set up, be diversified and simple - look at it once a year!

Splitting it into three seems unnecessarily complicated. 

Personally I'd prefer a far more diversified portfolio with £400k to be invested. Something that accords with personal objectives as well. VAGS short term performance isn't great. 

Two funds is extreme. Personally - I would want many more - but then I am happy to fiddle a bit.  I'm far from convinced splitting the monies between two robo ops and VLS is much better though - you might get much the same effect by picking three multi asset funds. 

VAGS is a tracker - it goes down as well as up - better to invest when its down.. 

Diplodicus

After managing my own investments for 20 years i'm finding it to time consuming doing all the DD.

You have not really been managing your investments but rather choosing others to do it for you from those promoted by Hargreaves Lansdown. 

The "discount" an HL investor receives is but a portion of the premium that fund pays for the privilege of being in HL's shop window. The Woodford fiasco shows how that relationship can go wrong for the "end user."

VLS60 has returned 15% over the last year. That seems a fair benchmark, and you are right to feel dissatisfied if your fortune is lagging far behind, as may be. You are paying at least two levels of annual commission, probably more. 

If you wish to manage your own investments for the next twenty years, there is a strong argument for investing in individual shares. The scare of losing your investment is entirely overblown with household names. Some would say funds carry more risk:- Woodford again cited.

bostonerimus

pip895 said:

Thrugelmir said:

pip895 said:

You could stay with HL and transfer your investments into a simple ETF portfolio which would cap your charges from HL to £45 + a few dealing fees.  

At its simplest you could go for a world tracker say HMWO & a bond fund say VAGS.  It would take minutes to set up, be diversified and simple - look at it once a year!

Splitting it into three seems unnecessarily complicated. 

Personally I'd prefer a far more diversified portfolio with £400k to be invested. Something that accords with personal objectives as well. VAGS short term performance isn't great. 

Two funds is extreme. Personally - I would want many more - but then I am happy to fiddle a bit.  I'm far from convinced splitting the monies between two robo ops and VLS is much better though - you might get much the same effect by picking three multi asset funds. 

VAGS is a tracker - it goes down as well as up - better to invest when its down.. 

I have the vast majority of my liquid assets in 3 funds and cash. The funds are all US Vanguard; Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, Vanguard International Stock Market Index and Vanguard Wellesley. The cash is in the bank and a Stable Value fund. I like the simplicity and the "benchmark" performance.

Albermarle

VLS60 has returned 15% over the last year. That seems a fair benchmark

Looking over one year is too short , especially considering during 2020 when the investments went down and then back , but all at different rates . I was comparing some active UK based funds last week ( not trackers ) and the difference in one year performance was huge . From about 15% to 90% . However the 90% one ( small companies )  had dived dramatically in the Covid crash and had not really started to recover until the Summer.

VLS 60 3 and 5 year annualised results were around 7.5%, which I think could be more used as a benchmark.

Incidentally their main competitor HSBC Global Strategy balanced was 8 to 8.5%