We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Vanguard funds - which to choose
Options
Comments
-
It hasn't underperformed. It is a different fund doing a different job. The two series of funds have different remits. One follows fixed compositions of equities and bonds, with a home bias the the UK; and the other changes composition in the hope of targeting and maintaining a specific level of risk.zagfles said:
Well whatever the exact amounts are, my point was that VLS100 is significantly less US, even on your figures (48% vs 63%), and significantly more UK than HSBC, and that's almost certainly the reason for its underperformance. Plus as mentioned above the strengthening of the USD.IanManc said:
The HL figure is incorrect. Grumio's figures are right.zagfles said:grumiofoundation said:
Not sure where you got this data from?zagfles said:Albermarle said:Vanguard are the huge business they are because their products and services work well and are deliberately kept simple to use.Not disputing this statement, but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK for these type of low cost multi asset funds. . The HSBC global strategy funds. Also they are cheaper.
Not a whole lot in it, and in future may be different, but worth noting.
The main reason for this appears to be the HSBC funds are more US biased and the Vanguard ones more UK biased, and US equities have done better than UK.Look at the geographical equity makeup of the HSBC funds in the facsheets, the equities portion is well over 50% US whereas Vanguard are around 30% US. Personally, I don't think over 50% US is very balanced even if it does reflect market cap.
VLS 100Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.4% Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc* 19.3% Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index Unit Trust GBP Acc 19.2% Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating 15.3%
*of which ~70% is US
so 19.4 + (19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 48.1
VLS 60 contains the followingVanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.3% Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 15.3%
(19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 28.8
Again 28.8 = 48% of 60
For HSBC adventurous (80% equity) factsheet is just over 50% US equity. So equity portion would be 63%.I just looked at HL's geographical breakdown here which says VLS100 is 31.12% US:
VLS100 investments as at 30.6.22 included 19.3% in Vanguard US fund; 15.3% in Vanguard S&P 500 fund; and 19.3% in Vanguard Developed World ex UK fund, of which 69.5% was US investments, i.e. 13.4% of VLS100; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in US equities of 48.1%.
The HL page you refer to also says that 16.7% of VLS100 investments are in Ireland, which is laughable. Investments in Ireland are found in two VLS100 components. They are Vanguard Developed World ex UK at 0.1% of a 19.3% investment, and Vanguard developed Europe ex UK at 0.4% of a 7% investment; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in Ireland of 0.0473%, not the 16.7% suggested by HL
LifeStrategy® 100% Equity Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed Europe ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
The series of funds will never mirror each other in terms of performance and no one who understands what they are designed to do and how they are constructed would expect them to. Your suggestion of underperformance is like suggesting an apple underperforms a pear.
Anyway, all I was seeking to do is to show that your contention that VLS100 is made up of "around 30%" or 31.12% of US investments is nonsense, and both Grumio and I have done that.0 -
A relative has 2 life strategy vanguard funds. The 80/20 seems to be doing better than the 60/40. Can anyone explain why.
Do Vaguard charge for every card transaction hence hidden charges?
Thanks0 -
People just love arguing over the inconsequential...“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”3
-
No they don't! : )bostonerimus said:People just love arguing over the inconsequential...Think first of your goal, then make it happen!4 -
missymouse said:A relative has 2 life strategy vanguard funds. The 80/20 seems to be doing better than the 60/40. Can anyone explain why.
Do Vaguard charge for every card transaction hence hidden charges?
Thanks1) All other things being equal (like investment date), if the 80/20 is doing better then it's because it's assets have fallen less or gained more than the 60/40. Bond performance (especially UK Gilts) has been poor over the first six months of this year, so perhaps a fund which higher proportion of bonds like these will do worse than a fund with less.2) Nope. Transaction fees are the fees incurred by the fund on their transactions, not your transactions (directly) - so if they are making lots of changes to the underlying assets say, then they might have a higher transaction fee. All funds (not just vanguard) have transaction fees but they are separated out from ongoing charges because they're changeable and a backwards looking measure - they can't tell you in advance how much they are going to spend on their transactions, so this figure tells you what the cost /was/. They're not hidden, but if you compare funds based only on the ongoing charge then you might miss them - however before making any investment the provider has to illustrate your likely real fees and this would include them.1 -
Yes they....oh I saw what you did there, excellent!barnstar2077 said:
No they don't! : )bostonerimus said:People just love arguing over the inconsequential...“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”1 -
A relative has 2 life strategy vanguard funds. The 80/20 seems to be doing better than the 60/40. Can anyone explain why.Because bonds have gone down more than equities.Do Vanguard charge for every card transaction hence hidden charges?You don't get hidden charges.
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.1 -
Read the post I replied to. It wasn't my suggestion, it was Albermarle's who said "... but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK...".IanManc said:
It hasn't underperformed. It is a different fund doing a different job. The two series of funds have different remits. One follows fixed compositions of equities and bonds, with a home bias the the UK; and the other changes composition in the hope of targeting and maintaining a specific level of risk.zagfles said:
Well whatever the exact amounts are, my point was that VLS100 is significantly less US, even on your figures (48% vs 63%), and significantly more UK than HSBC, and that's almost certainly the reason for its underperformance. Plus as mentioned above the strengthening of the USD.IanManc said:
The HL figure is incorrect. Grumio's figures are right.zagfles said:grumiofoundation said:
Not sure where you got this data from?zagfles said:Albermarle said:Vanguard are the huge business they are because their products and services work well and are deliberately kept simple to use.Not disputing this statement, but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK for these type of low cost multi asset funds. . The HSBC global strategy funds. Also they are cheaper.
Not a whole lot in it, and in future may be different, but worth noting.
The main reason for this appears to be the HSBC funds are more US biased and the Vanguard ones more UK biased, and US equities have done better than UK.Look at the geographical equity makeup of the HSBC funds in the facsheets, the equities portion is well over 50% US whereas Vanguard are around 30% US. Personally, I don't think over 50% US is very balanced even if it does reflect market cap.
VLS 100Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.4% Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc* 19.3% Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index Unit Trust GBP Acc 19.2% Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating 15.3%
*of which ~70% is US
so 19.4 + (19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 48.1
VLS 60 contains the followingVanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.3% Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 15.3%
(19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 28.8
Again 28.8 = 48% of 60
For HSBC adventurous (80% equity) factsheet is just over 50% US equity. So equity portion would be 63%.I just looked at HL's geographical breakdown here which says VLS100 is 31.12% US:
VLS100 investments as at 30.6.22 included 19.3% in Vanguard US fund; 15.3% in Vanguard S&P 500 fund; and 19.3% in Vanguard Developed World ex UK fund, of which 69.5% was US investments, i.e. 13.4% of VLS100; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in US equities of 48.1%.
The HL page you refer to also says that 16.7% of VLS100 investments are in Ireland, which is laughable. Investments in Ireland are found in two VLS100 components. They are Vanguard Developed World ex UK at 0.1% of a 19.3% investment, and Vanguard developed Europe ex UK at 0.4% of a 7% investment; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in Ireland of 0.0473%, not the 16.7% suggested by HL
LifeStrategy® 100% Equity Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed Europe ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
The series of funds will never mirror each other in terms of performance and no one who understands what they are designed to do and how they are constructed would expect them to. Your suggestion of underperformance is like suggesting an apple underperforms a pear.
We're actually making the same point, ie they are different funds with different constituents and different remits so a comparison of performance is indeed like comparing an apple and pear. I quite agree. That was my point.
But well done on pointing out the exact apply'ness and pear'ness of the funds
I suggest you inform HL.
0 -
You were replying to my post, not Albermarle's when you mentioned the "underperformance" of VLS. Everyone can see that.zagfles said:
Read the post I replied to. It wasn't my suggestion, it was Albermarle's who said "... but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK...".IanManc said:
It hasn't underperformed. It is a different fund doing a different job. The two series of funds have different remits. One follows fixed compositions of equities and bonds, with a home bias the the UK; and the other changes composition in the hope of targeting and maintaining a specific level of risk.zagfles said:
Well whatever the exact amounts are, my point was that VLS100 is significantly less US, even on your figures (48% vs 63%), and significantly more UK than HSBC, and that's almost certainly the reason for its underperformance. Plus as mentioned above the strengthening of the USD.IanManc said:
The HL figure is incorrect. Grumio's figures are right.zagfles said:grumiofoundation said:
Not sure where you got this data from?zagfles said:Albermarle said:Vanguard are the huge business they are because their products and services work well and are deliberately kept simple to use.Not disputing this statement, but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK for these type of low cost multi asset funds. . The HSBC global strategy funds. Also they are cheaper.
Not a whole lot in it, and in future may be different, but worth noting.
The main reason for this appears to be the HSBC funds are more US biased and the Vanguard ones more UK biased, and US equities have done better than UK.Look at the geographical equity makeup of the HSBC funds in the facsheets, the equities portion is well over 50% US whereas Vanguard are around 30% US. Personally, I don't think over 50% US is very balanced even if it does reflect market cap.
VLS 100Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.4% Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc* 19.3% Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index Unit Trust GBP Acc 19.2% Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating 15.3%
*of which ~70% is US
so 19.4 + (19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 48.1
VLS 60 contains the followingVanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.3% Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 15.3%
(19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 28.8
Again 28.8 = 48% of 60
For HSBC adventurous (80% equity) factsheet is just over 50% US equity. So equity portion would be 63%.I just looked at HL's geographical breakdown here which says VLS100 is 31.12% US:
VLS100 investments as at 30.6.22 included 19.3% in Vanguard US fund; 15.3% in Vanguard S&P 500 fund; and 19.3% in Vanguard Developed World ex UK fund, of which 69.5% was US investments, i.e. 13.4% of VLS100; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in US equities of 48.1%.
The HL page you refer to also says that 16.7% of VLS100 investments are in Ireland, which is laughable. Investments in Ireland are found in two VLS100 components. They are Vanguard Developed World ex UK at 0.1% of a 19.3% investment, and Vanguard developed Europe ex UK at 0.4% of a 7% investment; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in Ireland of 0.0473%, not the 16.7% suggested by HL
LifeStrategy® 100% Equity Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed Europe ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
The series of funds will never mirror each other in terms of performance and no one who understands what they are designed to do and how they are constructed would expect them to. Your suggestion of underperformance is like suggesting an apple underperforms a pear.
We're actually making the same point, ie they are different funds with different constituents and different remits so a comparison of performance is indeed like comparing an apple and pear. I quite agree. That was my point.
But well done on pointing out the exact apply'ness and pear'ness of the funds I suggest you inform HL.
And if you want HL to be informed of their shortcomings then I suggest you do it it. After all, it's your idea not mine, and it was you who was using a link to their site to support your posting of misinformation on here as to the composition of VLS100. 😉0 -
IanManc said:
You were replying to my post, not Albermarle's when you mentioned the "underperformance" of VLS. Everyone can see that.zagfles said:
Read the post I replied to. It wasn't my suggestion, it was Albermarle's who said "... but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK...".IanManc said:
It hasn't underperformed. It is a different fund doing a different job. The two series of funds have different remits. One follows fixed compositions of equities and bonds, with a home bias the the UK; and the other changes composition in the hope of targeting and maintaining a specific level of risk.zagfles said:
Well whatever the exact amounts are, my point was that VLS100 is significantly less US, even on your figures (48% vs 63%), and significantly more UK than HSBC, and that's almost certainly the reason for its underperformance. Plus as mentioned above the strengthening of the USD.IanManc said:
The HL figure is incorrect. Grumio's figures are right.zagfles said:grumiofoundation said:
Not sure where you got this data from?zagfles said:Albermarle said:Vanguard are the huge business they are because their products and services work well and are deliberately kept simple to use.Not disputing this statement, but the VLS funds have been underperforming one of their main competitor in the UK for these type of low cost multi asset funds. . The HSBC global strategy funds. Also they are cheaper.
Not a whole lot in it, and in future may be different, but worth noting.
The main reason for this appears to be the HSBC funds are more US biased and the Vanguard ones more UK biased, and US equities have done better than UK.Look at the geographical equity makeup of the HSBC funds in the facsheets, the equities portion is well over 50% US whereas Vanguard are around 30% US. Personally, I don't think over 50% US is very balanced even if it does reflect market cap.
VLS 100Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.4% Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc* 19.3% Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index Unit Trust GBP Acc 19.2% Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating 15.3%
*of which ~70% is US
so 19.4 + (19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 48.1
VLS 60 contains the followingVanguard FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 19.3% Vanguard U.S. Equity Index Fund GBP Acc 15.3%
(19.3*0.7) + 15.3 = 28.8
Again 28.8 = 48% of 60
For HSBC adventurous (80% equity) factsheet is just over 50% US equity. So equity portion would be 63%.I just looked at HL's geographical breakdown here which says VLS100 is 31.12% US:
VLS100 investments as at 30.6.22 included 19.3% in Vanguard US fund; 15.3% in Vanguard S&P 500 fund; and 19.3% in Vanguard Developed World ex UK fund, of which 69.5% was US investments, i.e. 13.4% of VLS100; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in US equities of 48.1%.
The HL page you refer to also says that 16.7% of VLS100 investments are in Ireland, which is laughable. Investments in Ireland are found in two VLS100 components. They are Vanguard Developed World ex UK at 0.1% of a 19.3% investment, and Vanguard developed Europe ex UK at 0.4% of a 7% investment; giving a total proportion of VLS100 invested in Ireland of 0.0473%, not the 16.7% suggested by HL
LifeStrategy® 100% Equity Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed World ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
FTSE Developed Europe ex-U.K. Equity Index Fund - Accumulation (vanguardinvestor.co.uk)
The series of funds will never mirror each other in terms of performance and no one who understands what they are designed to do and how they are constructed would expect them to. Your suggestion of underperformance is like suggesting an apple underperforms a pear.
We're actually making the same point, ie they are different funds with different constituents and different remits so a comparison of performance is indeed like comparing an apple and pear. I quite agree. That was my point.
But well done on pointing out the exact apply'ness and pear'ness of the funds I suggest you inform HL. Well we're both technically correct. A pear can underperform an apple, for instance a pear underperfoms an apple at "roundness". Things can be compared even if they are constituted differently and have different objectives you know.I was just pointing out that they are different. And you agreed, although you want to make a big deal about the exact extent of the difference. Go for it, if you think it makes you look smart.
CBA. You say they're wrong, you tell them. I've not checked your figures, because I really don't care, I was just pointing out the funds are different. You don't dispute that, you just want to make a big deal about HL being wrong. So tell them, not me.And if you want HL to be informed of their shortcomings then I suggest you do it it. After all, it's your idea not mine, and it was you who was using a link to their site to support your posting of misinformation on here as to the composition of VLS100. 😉Have a lovely evening and don't let the heat get to you.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards