Stick with Lifestyle plan, or self-select funds?

Albermarle

LV_426 said:

Bimbly said:

The advantage of the default investment option is that it is a set and forget it option. All you have to worry about is how much you are putting into it.

I moved my funds out of the default of my scheme and I often wonder if I have chosen too risky/not risky enough options and the general wisdom of my choices. So far, it looks like I've made sort of the right choice with regards to investments, but that nagging doubt remains.

If leaving the default, you can choose one multi-asset fund which does the job, or a mix.

Another option to get around too much de-risking in a default scheme is to change your nominal retirement age, assuming your scheme allows you to do this. So, for example, say you want to retire at 60, you could set your "retirement age" to 75 and the de-risking would follow that time scale, but there's nothing to stop you drawing at 60.

Yes I've considered changing the retirement date. However at this point I've really not made my mind up if I'll be calling it a day at 60 (just over 4 year's time), or carrying on. My job currently is fine, and I'd like to preserve a lot of these pension assets for my kids. I will have a couple of DB pensions plus full SP at normal retirement age.

So at the moment, I could go for the higher risk funds, with a view to long term growth.

But as we all know, things can change. Not sure what my situation will be in 4 years time!

The nominal retirement date that SL hold for you in their system, and your actual retirement date are really unrelated.
Changing the retirement date in the system to 75 to halt/reverse any derisking is OK as just a short term measure, whilst you decide what you really want to do with investing your pension pot.

In fact for a long term drawdown plan (or a plan to pass on pensions assets) there is often no need to change the investment portfolio at all when you retire. If you are happy with a portfolio/risk level one year before you retire, then why change it just because you retire. 

LV_426

Albermarle said:

LV_426 said:

Bimbly said:

The advantage of the default investment option is that it is a set and forget it option. All you have to worry about is how much you are putting into it.

I moved my funds out of the default of my scheme and I often wonder if I have chosen too risky/not risky enough options and the general wisdom of my choices. So far, it looks like I've made sort of the right choice with regards to investments, but that nagging doubt remains.

If leaving the default, you can choose one multi-asset fund which does the job, or a mix.

Another option to get around too much de-risking in a default scheme is to change your nominal retirement age, assuming your scheme allows you to do this. So, for example, say you want to retire at 60, you could set your "retirement age" to 75 and the de-risking would follow that time scale, but there's nothing to stop you drawing at 60.

Yes I've considered changing the retirement date. However at this point I've really not made my mind up if I'll be calling it a day at 60 (just over 4 year's time), or carrying on. My job currently is fine, and I'd like to preserve a lot of these pension assets for my kids. I will have a couple of DB pensions plus full SP at normal retirement age.

So at the moment, I could go for the higher risk funds, with a view to long term growth.

But as we all know, things can change. Not sure what my situation will be in 4 years time!

The nominal retirement date that SL hold for you in their system, and your actual retirement date are really unrelated.
Changing the retirement date in the system to 75 to halt/reverse any derisking is OK as just a short term measure, whilst you decide what you really want to do with investing your pension pot.

In fact for a long term drawdown plan (or a plan to pass on pensions assets) there is often no need to change the investment portfolio at all when you retire. If you are happy with a portfolio/risk level one year before you retire, then why change it just because you retire. 

Good point. It may be that I leave things as they are. And as we all know, any changes you make must be for a tangible benefit. The charges on the currently invested funds are relatively low. 

Maybe I'll ping SL a message and see what they say, but obviously they won't advise on specific fund choices. 

On a side note, I do like their website and in my experience it's one of the better ones I've encountered.

redpete

LV_426 said:

Albermarle said:

LV_426 said:

Bimbly said:

The advantage of the default investment option is that it is a set and forget it option. All you have to worry about is how much you are putting into it.

I moved my funds out of the default of my scheme and I often wonder if I have chosen too risky/not risky enough options and the general wisdom of my choices. So far, it looks like I've made sort of the right choice with regards to investments, but that nagging doubt remains.

If leaving the default, you can choose one multi-asset fund which does the job, or a mix.

Another option to get around too much de-risking in a default scheme is to change your nominal retirement age, assuming your scheme allows you to do this. So, for example, say you want to retire at 60, you could set your "retirement age" to 75 and the de-risking would follow that time scale, but there's nothing to stop you drawing at 60.

Yes I've considered changing the retirement date. However at this point I've really not made my mind up if I'll be calling it a day at 60 (just over 4 year's time), or carrying on. My job currently is fine, and I'd like to preserve a lot of these pension assets for my kids. I will have a couple of DB pensions plus full SP at normal retirement age.

So at the moment, I could go for the higher risk funds, with a view to long term growth.

But as we all know, things can change. Not sure what my situation will be in 4 years time!

The nominal retirement date that SL hold for you in their system, and your actual retirement date are really unrelated.
Changing the retirement date in the system to 75 to halt/reverse any derisking is OK as just a short term measure, whilst you decide what you really want to do with investing your pension pot.

In fact for a long term drawdown plan (or a plan to pass on pensions assets) there is often no need to change the investment portfolio at all when you retire. If you are happy with a portfolio/risk level one year before you retire, then why change it just because you retire. 

Maybe I'll ping SL a message and see what they say, but obviously they won't advise on specific fund choices. 

I suspect they will just point you to the fund fact sheets that should describe the purpose that they are designed to fulfil.

Albermarle

LV_426 said:

Albermarle said:

LV_426 said:

Bimbly said:

The advantage of the default investment option is that it is a set and forget it option. All you have to worry about is how much you are putting into it.

I moved my funds out of the default of my scheme and I often wonder if I have chosen too risky/not risky enough options and the general wisdom of my choices. So far, it looks like I've made sort of the right choice with regards to investments, but that nagging doubt remains.

If leaving the default, you can choose one multi-asset fund which does the job, or a mix.

Another option to get around too much de-risking in a default scheme is to change your nominal retirement age, assuming your scheme allows you to do this. So, for example, say you want to retire at 60, you could set your "retirement age" to 75 and the de-risking would follow that time scale, but there's nothing to stop you drawing at 60.

Yes I've considered changing the retirement date. However at this point I've really not made my mind up if I'll be calling it a day at 60 (just over 4 year's time), or carrying on. My job currently is fine, and I'd like to preserve a lot of these pension assets for my kids. I will have a couple of DB pensions plus full SP at normal retirement age.

So at the moment, I could go for the higher risk funds, with a view to long term growth.

But as we all know, things can change. Not sure what my situation will be in 4 years time!

The nominal retirement date that SL hold for you in their system, and your actual retirement date are really unrelated.
Changing the retirement date in the system to 75 to halt/reverse any derisking is OK as just a short term measure, whilst you decide what you really want to do with investing your pension pot.

In fact for a long term drawdown plan (or a plan to pass on pensions assets) there is often no need to change the investment portfolio at all when you retire. If you are happy with a portfolio/risk level one year before you retire, then why change it just because you retire. 

Good point. It may be that I leave things as they are. And as we all know, any changes you make must be for a tangible benefit. The charges on the currently invested funds are relatively low. 

Maybe I'll ping SL a message and see what they say, but obviously they won't advise on specific fund choices. 

On a side note, I do like their website and in my experience it's one of the better ones I've encountered.

I agree with your last sentence, some of the older traditional providers like Scottish Widows and Aegon, have very clunky websites, but SL is OK. However this part of SL was bought by Phoenix group a couple of years ago, and I think there is a change coming soon. They are outsourcing their customer service and some of the SL staff are losing their jobs I think and maybe new IT systems etc. Maybe for the better but we will see. 

LV_426

Pete's on the case. He's made a video on this subject. Must have been reading the forum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG37R7NMpPU

Audaxer

LV_426 said:

Pete's on the case. He's made a video on this subject. Must have been reading the forum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG37R7NMpPU

A decent short video for those starting out. I was going to say the one thing he didn't mention was risk or risk profile, but he did say at the end of the video that he would be talking about that next time. That is certainly important when deciding which multi asset fund to select.

LV_426

Audaxer said:

LV_426 said:

Pete's on the case. He's made a video on this subject. Must have been reading the forum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG37R7NMpPU

A decent short video for those starting out. I was going to say the one thing he didn't mention was risk or risk profile, but he did say at the end of the video that he would be talking about that next time. That is certainly important when deciding which multi asset fund to select.

Yup, definitely a factor. 
But looking at my Lifestyle plan, SL have selected a couple of multi asset funds with pretty low charges, so I think they know what they are doing.

Audaxer

LV_426 said:

Audaxer said:

LV_426 said:

Pete's on the case. He's made a video on this subject. Must have been reading the forum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG37R7NMpPU

A decent short video for those starting out. I was going to say the one thing he didn't mention was risk or risk profile, but he did say at the end of the video that he would be talking about that next time. That is certainly important when deciding which multi asset fund to select.

Yup, definitely a factor. 
But looking at my Lifestyle plan, SL have selected a couple of multi asset funds with pretty low charges, so I think they know what they are doing.

Do you know roughly what percentage of equities you are looking for in a multi asset fund? 

If you care to share it would be interesting to see what multi asset fund options SL has selected.

LV_426

Audaxer said:

LV_426 said:

Audaxer said:

LV_426 said:

Pete's on the case. He's made a video on this subject. Must have been reading the forum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG37R7NMpPU

A decent short video for those starting out. I was going to say the one thing he didn't mention was risk or risk profile, but he did say at the end of the video that he would be talking about that next time. That is certainly important when deciding which multi asset fund to select.

Yup, definitely a factor. 
But looking at my Lifestyle plan, SL have selected a couple of multi asset funds with pretty low charges, so I think they know what they are doing.

Do you know roughly what percentage of equities you are looking for in a multi asset fund? 

If you care to share it would be interesting to see what multi asset fund options SL has selected.

Sure. They've put 90% of my money into this one http://library.adviserzone.com/cemh.pdf
And 10% into this http://library.adviserzone.com/plnd.pdf

With the latter being a lower risk. But it's not clear what percentage of equities are in each.

Audaxer

LV_426 said:

Audaxer said:

LV_426 said:

Audaxer said:

LV_426 said:

Pete's on the case. He's made a video on this subject. Must have been reading the forum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG37R7NMpPU

A decent short video for those starting out. I was going to say the one thing he didn't mention was risk or risk profile, but he did say at the end of the video that he would be talking about that next time. That is certainly important when deciding which multi asset fund to select.

Yup, definitely a factor. 
But looking at my Lifestyle plan, SL have selected a couple of multi asset funds with pretty low charges, so I think they know what they are doing.

Do you know roughly what percentage of equities you are looking for in a multi asset fund? 

If you care to share it would be interesting to see what multi asset fund options SL has selected.

Sure. They've put 90% of my money into this one http://library.adviserzone.com/cemh.pdf
And 10% into this http://library.adviserzone.com/plnd.pdf

With the latter being a lower risk. But it's not clear what percentage of equities are in each.

Thanks. The only thing that would concern me a bit are that the total fund charges at around 1% per annum is quite high compared to some of the popular DIY multi asset funds that have fund charges at around 0.20% per annum.  Is there an additional SL platform charge as well as the fund charges?