Transfer from management of investments in active Wealth Manager to Vanguard passive funds

Prism

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

I use Vanguards Emerging Markets tracker as one of my funds. I wouldn't refer to myself as a speculator, although it seems you might. Sort of diminishes the term if you use it to refer to anyone who doesn't use a world or US tracker. That would include most of the US investors who only use an S&P tracker rather than a whole market fund.

Linton

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

Nonsense in my humble opinion.  Choosing not to invest more than 60% of one's life savings in one single country whose returns are dominated by one or two sectors which are in turn  dominated by a handfull of massive companies seems to me to be taking a prudent approach rather than speculation.

The objective of a rational investment poilicy should surely be to achieve one's objectives at minimum risk. One can reduce risk by appropriate equity asset allocation.

GeoffTF

Prism said:

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

I use Vanguards Emerging Markets tracker as one of my funds. I wouldn't refer to myself as a speculator, although it seems you might. Sort of diminishes the term if you use it to refer to anyone who doesn't use a world or US tracker. That would include most of the US investors who only use an S&P tracker rather than a whole market fund.

I invest in a market weight of Vanguard's Emerging Markets tracker VFEM. I am a speculator as a result of buying equities. Oxford Languages gives one of the meanings of speculation as "investment in stocks, property, etc. in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss". Investing in equities is certainly speculation. Investing in bonds is speculation too, with some exceptions. Investing in any of Vanguard's funds involves speculating that the fund will outperform cash in the bank.

Financial theory says that the market portfolio gives the highest risk adjusted return (subject to a long list of assumptions). If I were to over-weight Emerging Markets, I would be speculating that Emerging Markets would out-perform the global index. That would not make sense for me to do that, unless I believed that I knew more than the market. I sometimes do believe that, and sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong.

There is nothing wrong with speculation or being a speculator.

GeoffTF

Linton said:

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

Nonsense in my humble opinion.  Choosing not to invest more than 60% of one's life savings in one single country whose returns are dominated by one or two sectors which are in turn  dominated by a handfull of massive companies seems to me to be taking a prudent approach rather than speculation.

What matters most here is diversification between companies, not countries. For the most part, the political boundaries are irrelevant. Companies can incorporate wherever they choose. They can derive most of their earnings overseas. Moving their headquarters does not change much. There can be relevant differences. Local taxation can be different, for example, but that should be reflected in the share price. There are special considerations for Emerging Market companies, but they should also be reflected in the share price.

If a company decided to incorporate in New York, rather than Canada, I would not reduce its weighting because of that.

The home market is an exception, because UK company dividends are not subject to withholding tax, for example. There are rational reasons for a home bias.

GeoffTF

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

Prism said:

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

I use Vanguards Emerging Markets tracker as one of my funds. I wouldn't refer to myself as a speculator, although it seems you might. Sort of diminishes the term if you use it to refer to anyone who doesn't use a world or US tracker. That would include most of the US investors who only use an S&P tracker rather than a whole market fund.

There is nothing wrong with speculation or being a speculator.

Obviously you don't understand what a speculator is. Here's a simple explanation from a US website of the difference between an investor and a speculator:

"Investors take a systematic approach to growing their wealth, buying assets with reasonable levels of risk in exchange for long-term growth. Speculators, on the other hand, buy assets that may experience rapid growth but can also lose their entire value if they go out of favor."

https://www.bankrate.com/investing/investing-vs-speculating/#:~:text=Bottom line,they go out of favor.

That might help you to understand where you are going wrong and why everyone disagrees with you.

I am not convinced. For a speculator, Oxford Languages gives:

a person who invests in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of making a profit.

"financial speculators exploiting small changes in markets to make money".

It is clear that not everyone disagrees with me. Nonetheless, "speculator" is often used as a pejorative term. "I am an investor, you are a speculator."

GeoffTF

IanManc said:

I am not convinced. For a speculator, Oxford Languages gives:

a person who invests in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of making a profit.

"financial speculators exploiting small changes in markets to make money".

It is clear that not everyone disagrees with me. Nonetheless, "speculator" is often used as a pejorative term. "I am an investor, you are a speculator."

Let me be clear: I couldn't care less whether or not you're "convinced". I was just trying to help you because you are making a fool of yourself.

Secondly, literally no one has agreed with you. 🙄

I do not care you think about me, and I do not need your help thank you very much. The dictionary agrees with me. People tend to say investor when they approve of the activity (or it is them), and speculator when they disapprove, but it is the same activity. I do not care whether people think that I am an investor, speculator, gambler or capitalist pig.

EthicsGradient

I'll step in now, just to say that GeoffTF is not "making a fool of himself", is making reasonable points, and has been insulted by bundoran.

Linton

GeoffTF said:

Linton said:

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

Nonsense in my humble opinion.  Choosing not to invest more than 60% of one's life savings in one single country whose returns are dominated by one or two sectors which are in turn  dominated by a handfull of massive companies seems to me to be taking a prudent approach rather than speculation.

What matters most here is diversification between companies, not countries. For the most part, the political boundaries are irrelevant. Companies can incorporate wherever they choose. They can derive most of their earnings overseas. Moving their headquarters does not change much. There can be relevant differences. Local taxation can be different, for example, but that should be reflected in the share price. There are special considerations for Emerging Market companies, but they should also be reflected in the share price.

If a company decided to incorporate in New York, rather than Canada, I would not reduce its weighting because of that.

The home market is an exception, because UK company dividends are not subject to withholding tax, for example. There are rational reasons for a home bias.

Countries can be a proxy for quite different sector asset allocations and differences in style. Hence they are also a single point of failure. Look at the US markets in the tech boom/crash era.

 

GeoffTF

Linton said:

GeoffTF said:

Linton said:

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

Nonsense in my humble opinion.  Choosing not to invest more than 60% of one's life savings in one single country whose returns are dominated by one or two sectors which are in turn  dominated by a handfull of massive companies seems to me to be taking a prudent approach rather than speculation.

What matters most here is diversification between companies, not countries. For the most part, the political boundaries are irrelevant. Companies can incorporate wherever they choose. They can derive most of their earnings overseas. Moving their headquarters does not change much. There can be relevant differences. Local taxation can be different, for example, but that should be reflected in the share price. There are special considerations for Emerging Market companies, but they should also be reflected in the share price.

If a company decided to incorporate in New York, rather than Canada, I would not reduce its weighting because of that.

The home market is an exception, because UK company dividends are not subject to withholding tax, for example. There are rational reasons for a home bias.

Countries can be a proxy for quite different sector asset allocations and differences in style. Hence they are also a single point of failure. Look at the US markets in the tech boom/crash era.

 

Professional investors try to exploit that. There is abundant evidence that they do not have more than chance success. Bogle would have asked why you believe that you are more capable of pricing market sectors than them. He would not have advocated under-weighting the tech stocks.

Linton

GeoffTF said:

Linton said:

GeoffTF said:

Linton said:

GeoffTF said:

bundoran said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

GeoffTF said:

dunstonh said:

Aminatidi said:

One reason.

Also a bit of personal psychology there where I'm trying to move towards passives and rightly or wrongly Vanguard not having 3000 active funds minimises the occasional urge to tinker

But Vanguard doesn't have the best or cheapest trackers in every area.  So, limiting yourself to just them could compromise the outcome.

Vanguard's trackers are as good as any. The cost of the platform will usually be more important than a small difference in the OCF. Transaction costs cannot be compared between providers because there is no standard method of calculation. You do not need trackers "in every area". Adding more of them will not increase your chances of a good outcome.

I never said you needed trackers in every area.   

However, Vanguard do have one of the largest range of trackers in non-core areas.   They are just not as low cost in core areas compared to other fund houses.

If charges are a driver behind the decision, as they are in this thread, then restricting yourself to Vanguard trackers only increases your charges.

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at speculators who believe that a particular market or sector will outperform. 

The vast majority of Vanguard funds are aimed at long term passive investors who want to invest in either the whole world, the developed world, or regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons; or people who wish to invest in a mixed asset fund like Lifestrategy.

To say that these passive funds and mixed asset funds - which make up the vast bulk of Vanguard's offering - are "aimed at speculators" is asinine.

Choosing "regions of the world in a proportion which they have chosen and are comfortable with for their own reasons" is speculation. That is not what Jack Bogle advocated. I have not said that Vanguard is wrong to offer those funds.

As for your last sentence, kindly quote me accurately and be polite.

Nonsense in my humble opinion.  Choosing not to invest more than 60% of one's life savings in one single country whose returns are dominated by one or two sectors which are in turn  dominated by a handfull of massive companies seems to me to be taking a prudent approach rather than speculation.

What matters most here is diversification between companies, not countries. For the most part, the political boundaries are irrelevant. Companies can incorporate wherever they choose. They can derive most of their earnings overseas. Moving their headquarters does not change much. There can be relevant differences. Local taxation can be different, for example, but that should be reflected in the share price. There are special considerations for Emerging Market companies, but they should also be reflected in the share price.

If a company decided to incorporate in New York, rather than Canada, I would not reduce its weighting because of that.

The home market is an exception, because UK company dividends are not subject to withholding tax, for example. There are rational reasons for a home bias.

Countries can be a proxy for quite different sector asset allocations and differences in style. Hence they are also a single point of failure. Look at the US markets in the tech boom/crash era.

 

Professional investors try to exploit that. There is abundant evidence that they do not have more than chance success. Bogle would have asked why you believe that you are more capable of pricing market sectors than them. He would not have advocated under-weighting the tech stocks.

The objective is to achieve sufficient real long term return at minimum risk, not to maximise return. My belief is that all well diversified sensibly managed portfolios will achieve much the same long term returns. I agree that attempts to achieve higher long term returns than this are on average likely to fail. However different allocations will have different short/medium term behaviours.

I see nothing magic about a market capitalisation based portfolio. Its only advantage is the low cost of implementation, the downside is restricted diversification being over dependent on a small number of closely related companies and susceptibility to over-enthusiastic speculation in high risk areas.

Why do you feel it necessary to rely on support from gurus? Surely your arguments should be defensible on their own.