Close to retirement. Investing a modest pot.

Audaxer

DairyQueen said:

Audaxer said:

DairyQueen said:

Audaxer said:

I've just looked at the Fidelity Multi Asset Balance Income W Inc fund (which has 38% equities) on TrustNet and compared it on a Total Return basis to VLS40 and VLS20 over the last 5 years and the results are as follows:
Fidelity Multi Asset Balance Income W Inc - 19.2%
VLS40 - 30.2%
VLS20 - 22.1%
I was surprised to see that even the VLS20 had better returns than the Fidelity fund which has 38% equities, but that must be down to the Fidelity fund concentrating on dividend paying equity in the UK in particular, rather than the more diversified VLS funds.

I suppose it depends whether having the likes of a VLS fund, and selling say 3.5% of capital once a year, is a manageable option for someone in your relative's position. The Fidelity fund could obviously do a lot better over the next 5 years, so it could still be a good option.

Just checked the fund on Trustnet. P'raps I am looking at the wrong fund but it gives the breakdown as:

48% Growth Assets
33.5% Yield Assets
16.8% Defensive Assets
3.1% Other
1.7% Cash
-3.1% Hedge

I can't see the fund on TrustNet now - it's buffering for some reason. I've looked at the fund on AJ Bell and it shows the same 38% equities as on the Fidelity site, so that seems to be the correct percentage of equities.

Is this the one?:
https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/o/jsqr/fidelity-multi-asset-balanced-income

Yes, that's the right fund. I see that about growth assets at 48% and yield assets at 33.5% on the first page, but I've never seen equity split that way. For some reason I cannot see the breakdown tab or other pages on TrustNet for that fund. The portfolio of the fund on the Fidelity site I previously linked - in the Stock Style box it shows that growth stocks only account for 5% of the equity. 

DairyQueen

Audaxer said:

DairyQueen said:

Audaxer said:

DairyQueen said:

Audaxer said:

I've just looked at the Fidelity Multi Asset Balance Income W Inc fund (which has 38% equities) on TrustNet and compared it on a Total Return basis to VLS40 and VLS20 over the last 5 years and the results are as follows:
Fidelity Multi Asset Balance Income W Inc - 19.2%
VLS40 - 30.2%
VLS20 - 22.1%
I was surprised to see that even the VLS20 had better returns than the Fidelity fund which has 38% equities, but that must be down to the Fidelity fund concentrating on dividend paying equity in the UK in particular, rather than the more diversified VLS funds.

I suppose it depends whether having the likes of a VLS fund, and selling say 3.5% of capital once a year, is a manageable option for someone in your relative's position. The Fidelity fund could obviously do a lot better over the next 5 years, so it could still be a good option.

Just checked the fund on Trustnet. P'raps I am looking at the wrong fund but it gives the breakdown as:

48% Growth Assets
33.5% Yield Assets
16.8% Defensive Assets
3.1% Other
1.7% Cash
-3.1% Hedge

I can't see the fund on TrustNet now - it's buffering for some reason. I've looked at the fund on AJ Bell and it shows the same 38% equities as on the Fidelity site, so that seems to be the correct percentage of equities.

Is this the one?:
https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/o/jsqr/fidelity-multi-asset-balanced-income

Yes, that's the right fund. I see that about growth assets at 48% and yield assets at 33.5% on the first page, but I've never seen equity split that way. For some reason I cannot see the breakdown tab or other pages on TrustNet for that fund. The portfolio of the fund on the Fidelity site I previously linked - in the Stock Style box it shows that growth stocks only account for 5% of the equity. 

Yes, a weird way of describing the asset allocation. I also noted that Fidelity used a different way of reporting asset allocation.

Back to the drawing board.

[Deleted User]

If it was me, I would recommend to have two years’ worth of needs in cash and the rest in VLS60. 

Simplicity and the discipline it helps to impose are undervalued.  

And I agree that having 80% in bonds isn’t particularly safe.  

The other option is to buy annuity with a portion of this money and put the rest in a more aggressive allocation. 

DairyQueen

Deleted_User said:

The other option is to buy annuity with a portion of this money and put the rest in a more aggressive allocation. 

That's a another option worth considering. Thank you.