Which Vanguard index fund looks a good bet?

adindas

NoviceInvestor1 said:

adindas said:

deja vu  to whom ??

Could you present the graph for a prolonged period of time regarding S&P500 and global tracking portfolio ??

Why would I need a graph for a prolonged period of time, the OP has a sub 5 year timeframe.....

Because

- at least five years does not mean sub 5 year time-frame

- Also it is yet to be proven that global balance portfolio could beat S&P500 in the next five years.

- Just following the crowd has never been a good idea.

Prism

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

If you are only investing for 5 years, and pound cost average over the next year, then for a % of your pot you only actually have a 4 year investment horizon. That’s very short for being 100% equities (echoing what others have said).

I also agree with those suggesting that betting on which country will do best isn’t much of a strategy - I doubt many bet on Brazil at the start of this year for example. 

Investing in VUSA (S&P500), you are not betting on a single country. So imo it should not be compared with bet on Brazil alone.

Also too much diversification, balance portfolio is actually not good for the investment return in the long run.

This is the strategy that have been used and followed by proven millionaire investors. I have posted a few links about this in the past.  Also I have posted the chart as comparison.

I am getting a sense of deja vu.....

As stated before - when a market sells off or becomes unpopular, which can happen for a multi year timeframe, certainly for longer than 5 years, it does not matter where constituents derive their revenue from. Market sentiment can turn against a specific index/country, and herd behaviour occurs. 

Yes, S&P 500 companies derive 29% of their revenue from outside the US (far less than other indexes like Japan which are far more international), but if Mr Market decides the US is not the place to be for 5 years then the US will go nowhere for 5 years. 

You also cherry pick the strategy of certain millionaire investors as confirmation bias - I can find articles from other millionaire investors to prove whatever point I want. I can show you a millionaire investor saying Bitcoin is a load of junk going to zero and I can find you a millionaire investor saying to go all in on Bitcoin as it's the future. This doesn't prove anything. 

deja vu  to whom ??

Could you present the graph for a prolonged period of time regarding S&P500 and global tracking portfolio ??

Sensible people will follow the strategy from proven investors rather than random people on the internet. The best one id the one you where you do your research and believe.

I remember one YT channel about pension,. That channel sometimes get quoted here provoking a Scooby Doo investing strategy to comprise a lot in bonds. Those who follow that strategy see where it has ended up now.

If I am allowed to cherry pick dates then this graph shows around 14 years of underperformance. Its NA not the S&P500 as no UK funds tracked this at the time.

NoviceInvestor1

The OP said they "intend" to invest for at least 5 years. They also are looking to drip feed over the first year.

Therefore some of their investment will have less than a 5 year timeframe. 

Being 100% in stocks in a single country tracker is in my opinion not a sensible option for a sub 5 year timeframe. 

Whether a billionaire or millionaire with a completely different pot size, time frame and risk appetite agrees with me or not is neither here nor there. 

I of course can't prove that a global index will do better than the S&P 500 over the next 5 years, and you nor anyone else can prove the opposite. I can find 5 year periods that one would have done better, and 5 year periods where the other will have done better.

Constantly extrapolating what a millionaire or billionaire would do and suggesting it indicates what others should do is a massive mistake in my opinion, but that's what we are here for - to share ideas. 

adindas

Prism said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

If you are only investing for 5 years, and pound cost average over the next year, then for a % of your pot you only actually have a 4 year investment horizon. That’s very short for being 100% equities (echoing what others have said).

I also agree with those suggesting that betting on which country will do best isn’t much of a strategy - I doubt many bet on Brazil at the start of this year for example. 

Investing in VUSA (S&P500), you are not betting on a single country. So imo it should not be compared with bet on Brazil alone.

Also too much diversification, balance portfolio is actually not good for the investment return in the long run.

This is the strategy that have been used and followed by proven millionaire investors. I have posted a few links about this in the past.  Also I have posted the chart as comparison.

I am getting a sense of deja vu.....

As stated before - when a market sells off or becomes unpopular, which can happen for a multi year timeframe, certainly for longer than 5 years, it does not matter where constituents derive their revenue from. Market sentiment can turn against a specific index/country, and herd behaviour occurs. 

Yes, S&P 500 companies derive 29% of their revenue from outside the US (far less than other indexes like Japan which are far more international), but if Mr Market decides the US is not the place to be for 5 years then the US will go nowhere for 5 years. 

You also cherry pick the strategy of certain millionaire investors as confirmation bias - I can find articles from other millionaire investors to prove whatever point I want. I can show you a millionaire investor saying Bitcoin is a load of junk going to zero and I can find you a millionaire investor saying to go all in on Bitcoin as it's the future. This doesn't prove anything. 

deja vu  to whom ??

Could you present the graph for a prolonged period of time regarding S&P500 and global tracking portfolio ??

Sensible people will follow the strategy from proven investors rather than random people on the internet. The best one id the one you where you do your research and believe.

I remember one YT channel about pension,. That channel sometimes get quoted here provoking a Scooby Doo investing strategy to comprise a lot in bonds. Those who follow that strategy see where it has ended up now.

If I am allowed to cherry pick dates then this graph shows around 14 years of underperformance. Its NA not the S&P500 as no UK funds tracked this at the time.

Well ehmm

Prism

adindas said:

Prism said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

If you are only investing for 5 years, and pound cost average over the next year, then for a % of your pot you only actually have a 4 year investment horizon. That’s very short for being 100% equities (echoing what others have said).

I also agree with those suggesting that betting on which country will do best isn’t much of a strategy - I doubt many bet on Brazil at the start of this year for example. 

Investing in VUSA (S&P500), you are not betting on a single country. So imo it should not be compared with bet on Brazil alone.

Also too much diversification, balance portfolio is actually not good for the investment return in the long run.

This is the strategy that have been used and followed by proven millionaire investors. I have posted a few links about this in the past.  Also I have posted the chart as comparison.

I am getting a sense of deja vu.....

As stated before - when a market sells off or becomes unpopular, which can happen for a multi year timeframe, certainly for longer than 5 years, it does not matter where constituents derive their revenue from. Market sentiment can turn against a specific index/country, and herd behaviour occurs. 

Yes, S&P 500 companies derive 29% of their revenue from outside the US (far less than other indexes like Japan which are far more international), but if Mr Market decides the US is not the place to be for 5 years then the US will go nowhere for 5 years. 

You also cherry pick the strategy of certain millionaire investors as confirmation bias - I can find articles from other millionaire investors to prove whatever point I want. I can show you a millionaire investor saying Bitcoin is a load of junk going to zero and I can find you a millionaire investor saying to go all in on Bitcoin as it's the future. This doesn't prove anything. 

deja vu  to whom ??

Could you present the graph for a prolonged period of time regarding S&P500 and global tracking portfolio ??

Sensible people will follow the strategy from proven investors rather than random people on the internet. The best one id the one you where you do your research and believe.

I remember one YT channel about pension,. That channel sometimes get quoted here provoking a Scooby Doo investing strategy to comprise a lot in bonds. Those who follow that strategy see where it has ended up now.

If I am allowed to cherry pick dates then this graph shows around 14 years of underperformance. Its NA not the S&P500 as no UK funds tracked this at the time.

Well ehmm

I'm not sure what point you were trying to convey with those graphs (the first is only 2 years), but the second one does a pretty good job of proving the point that single country investing can underperform for many years. You need to go to the source to see properly, but the US underperformed the rest of the world for nearly 30 years over that time period, followed by a few years during the dot.com crash when it did ok (until it didn't) and then another 10+ years of underperformance. Seems like a strong case not to invest in a single country to me.

US Stocks vs. The World - 52 Year Chart | Longtermtrends

adindas

Prism said:

adindas said:

Prism said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

If you are only investing for 5 years, and pound cost average over the next year, then for a % of your pot you only actually have a 4 year investment horizon. That’s very short for being 100% equities (echoing what others have said).

I also agree with those suggesting that betting on which country will do best isn’t much of a strategy - I doubt many bet on Brazil at the start of this year for example. 

Investing in VUSA (S&P500), you are not betting on a single country. So imo it should not be compared with bet on Brazil alone.

Also too much diversification, balance portfolio is actually not good for the investment return in the long run.

This is the strategy that have been used and followed by proven millionaire investors. I have posted a few links about this in the past.  Also I have posted the chart as comparison.

I am getting a sense of deja vu.....

As stated before - when a market sells off or becomes unpopular, which can happen for a multi year timeframe, certainly for longer than 5 years, it does not matter where constituents derive their revenue from. Market sentiment can turn against a specific index/country, and herd behaviour occurs. 

Yes, S&P 500 companies derive 29% of their revenue from outside the US (far less than other indexes like Japan which are far more international), but if Mr Market decides the US is not the place to be for 5 years then the US will go nowhere for 5 years. 

You also cherry pick the strategy of certain millionaire investors as confirmation bias - I can find articles from other millionaire investors to prove whatever point I want. I can show you a millionaire investor saying Bitcoin is a load of junk going to zero and I can find you a millionaire investor saying to go all in on Bitcoin as it's the future. This doesn't prove anything. 

deja vu  to whom ??

Could you present the graph for a prolonged period of time regarding S&P500 and global tracking portfolio ??

Sensible people will follow the strategy from proven investors rather than random people on the internet. The best one id the one you where you do your research and believe.

I remember one YT channel about pension,. That channel sometimes get quoted here provoking a Scooby Doo investing strategy to comprise a lot in bonds. Those who follow that strategy see where it has ended up now.

If I am allowed to cherry pick dates then this graph shows around 14 years of underperformance. Its NA not the S&P500 as no UK funds tracked this at the time.

Well ehmm

I'm not sure what point you were trying to convey with those graphs (the first is only 2 years), but the second one does a pretty good job of proving the point that single country investing can underperform for many years. You need to go to the source to see properly, but the US underperformed the rest of the world for nearly 30 years over that time period, followed by a few years during the dot.com crash when it did ok (until it didn't) and then another 10+ years of underperformance. Seems like a strong case not to invest in a single country to me.

US Stocks vs. The World - 52 Year Chart | Longtermtrends

Two years  ??????? Please look at again all of three graphs. And as previously, I do not think the S&P500 is the same with a single country portfolio like in the previous example someone is quoting Brazil.

adindas

NoviceInvestor1 said:

The OP said they "intend" to invest for at least 5 years. They also are looking to drip feed over the first year.

Therefore some of their investment will have less than a 5 year timeframe. 

Being 100% in stocks in a single country tracker is in my opinion not a sensible option for a sub 5 year timeframe. 

Whether a billionaire or millionaire with a completely different pot size, time frame and risk appetite agrees with me or not is neither here nor there. 

I of course can't prove that a global index will do better than the S&P 500 over the next 5 years, and you nor anyone else can prove the opposite. I can find 5 year periods that one would have done better, and 5 year periods where the other will have done better.

Constantly extrapolating what a millionaire or billionaire would do and suggesting it indicates what others should do is a massive mistake in my opinion, but that's what we are here for - to share ideas. 

It is probably good to bring this one again to remind us these great billionaire investors

Prism

adindas said:

Prism said:

adindas said:

Prism said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

If you are only investing for 5 years, and pound cost average over the next year, then for a % of your pot you only actually have a 4 year investment horizon. That’s very short for being 100% equities (echoing what others have said).

I also agree with those suggesting that betting on which country will do best isn’t much of a strategy - I doubt many bet on Brazil at the start of this year for example. 

Investing in VUSA (S&P500), you are not betting on a single country. So imo it should not be compared with bet on Brazil alone.

Also too much diversification, balance portfolio is actually not good for the investment return in the long run.

This is the strategy that have been used and followed by proven millionaire investors. I have posted a few links about this in the past.  Also I have posted the chart as comparison.

I am getting a sense of deja vu.....

As stated before - when a market sells off or becomes unpopular, which can happen for a multi year timeframe, certainly for longer than 5 years, it does not matter where constituents derive their revenue from. Market sentiment can turn against a specific index/country, and herd behaviour occurs. 

Yes, S&P 500 companies derive 29% of their revenue from outside the US (far less than other indexes like Japan which are far more international), but if Mr Market decides the US is not the place to be for 5 years then the US will go nowhere for 5 years. 

You also cherry pick the strategy of certain millionaire investors as confirmation bias - I can find articles from other millionaire investors to prove whatever point I want. I can show you a millionaire investor saying Bitcoin is a load of junk going to zero and I can find you a millionaire investor saying to go all in on Bitcoin as it's the future. This doesn't prove anything. 

deja vu  to whom ??

Could you present the graph for a prolonged period of time regarding S&P500 and global tracking portfolio ??

Sensible people will follow the strategy from proven investors rather than random people on the internet. The best one id the one you where you do your research and believe.

I remember one YT channel about pension,. That channel sometimes get quoted here provoking a Scooby Doo investing strategy to comprise a lot in bonds. Those who follow that strategy see where it has ended up now.

If I am allowed to cherry pick dates then this graph shows around 14 years of underperformance. Its NA not the S&P500 as no UK funds tracked this at the time.

Well ehmm

I'm not sure what point you were trying to convey with those graphs (the first is only 2 years), but the second one does a pretty good job of proving the point that single country investing can underperform for many years. You need to go to the source to see properly, but the US underperformed the rest of the world for nearly 30 years over that time period, followed by a few years during the dot.com crash when it did ok (until it didn't) and then another 10+ years of underperformance. Seems like a strong case not to invest in a single country to me.

US Stocks vs. The World - 52 Year Chart | Longtermtrends

Two years  ??????? Please look at again al of three graphs

The Yahoo finance link shows 3 years... sorry I missed a year. Still not long enough.

The Long Term Trends graph is more relevant and shows many years of US underperformance and a few years of out performance.

Prism

adindas said:

NoviceInvestor1 said:

The OP said they "intend" to invest for at least 5 years. They also are looking to drip feed over the first year.

Therefore some of their investment will have less than a 5 year timeframe. 

Being 100% in stocks in a single country tracker is in my opinion not a sensible option for a sub 5 year timeframe. 

Whether a billionaire or millionaire with a completely different pot size, time frame and risk appetite agrees with me or not is neither here nor there. 

I of course can't prove that a global index will do better than the S&P 500 over the next 5 years, and you nor anyone else can prove the opposite. I can find 5 year periods that one would have done better, and 5 year periods where the other will have done better.

Constantly extrapolating what a millionaire or billionaire would do and suggesting it indicates what others should do is a massive mistake in my opinion, but that's what we are here for - to share ideas. 

It is probably good to bring this one again to remind us these great billionaire investors

These guys are exceptional investors who most people would come nowhere close to emulating. For most people, ordinary results (as Charlie Munger quotes) are a realistic goal - most people fail to even do that.

You could argue that their world and time cannot happen again. More recently it has been the like of Jim Simons who has shown them what excess performance really looks like.

NoviceInvestor1

adindas said:

Great charting showing the US underperforming the MSCI World from 1970 until the mid 90's, and then again from early 2000's until about 10 years ago.

Almost like it goes in cycles......who knew.