Anything better than BlackRock Consensus 100 available at the moment

msallen

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

I wasn't making a comment about your wider argument about the merits or otherwise of alternative investment strategies, I was simply pointing out that the quote I included was plainly ridiculous.

Linton

adindas said:

bostonerimus said:

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

You only mention the success stories for such a strategy, not the people who have failed. A well diversified portfolio is best for most people. It made me a millionaire and all the funds I ever invested in were diversified equity and bond funds. I'll never be a billionaire, but I don't need to be one as I'm still financially independent which was my goal.

Aa Everyone could become a millionaire if they keep adding money until at least a million in the stock market, they have assets in value of at least 1mil does not he ?? 
b) You do not even need to invest in the stock market to become a millionaire.  Everyone with income exceeding the outgoing spending will be financially independent does not he.

c) What matter is do you outperform the return from the market.

d) I never say people do not need to diversity I am just confronting the view of the urban myth that excessive diversification is a good strategy for those whose aim is to grow their wealth which I believe the aim of majority of people  when investing. Otherwise why not just keep it all in saving account, safe and secure, risk free.

....

a) How many people could afford to put away sufficient money for the long term to become millionaires at todays prices before they retire? What if they wanted to retire early?   Why would they want to impoverish themselves during their working lives to live more than comfortably in retirement?

b) If you dont invest how are you proposing to match long term inflation without investing in the stock market?

C) Whether you outperform the market is not what matters unless you see investing as some sort of video game.  If on the other hand your aim is to ensure that you have as comfortable a life as possible then all that matters is sufficient return to meet your needs/wishes at minimum risk.

d) I do not understand the concept of excessive diversification.  One can have inappropriate diversification or insufficient diversification.  Your understanding of diversification seems somewhat limited.  It is not simply a matter of % bond funds but rather how do you minimise risk by investing in as broad a range of assets as possible whilst still meeting your objectives.

If just keeping your money in a savings account meets your objectives, fine.  Why do anything else?  But as you say most people invest to grow their wealth which implies matching or exceeding inflation.  But growing wealth needs to be balanced against the risk you will fail.  With investing it is not the case that "'tis better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all".

Linton

GeoffTF said:

Here is all you need to know:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwkjqGd8NC4

Here is more evidence that past performance is no guide to the future:

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/education/education-spiva-scorecards-an-overview.pdf

The OP will find out what the IFA's opinion is worth if he asks him to guarantee compensation if his recommendation under performs LifeStrategy 100.

No - most people with reasonable amounts of money invested neither need nor want both the returns and risks of investing in 100% equity. The role of the IFA is to invest according to the client's needs, wishes, circumstances, and ability to taken on risk without panicking. 

Any IFA who claims to be able to predict high performance should be avoided at all costs.  Hopefully they wont stay in business for long.

dunstonh

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

A lot of the often quoted billionaire investors tell people to do things differently to how they did it.  Buffett doesn't invest how he told a room full of Americans how his wife should invest if he was dead.

The OP will find out what the IFA's opinion is worth if he asks him to guarantee compensation if his recommendation under performs LifeStrategy 100.

The IFA is not an investment manager.    All the IFA is responsible for is selecting the asset allocation and the funds to use to achieve that.     Most of that data comes from third parties and is bought in.  The primary objective for an IFA is suitability.  Not trying to eek out the best returns possible.

For example, I cannot remember the last time I had a client with 100% equity.     So, comparing a managed fund like VLS100 against a portfolio that has less than 100% equity would be wrong.

adindas

Linton said:

adindas said:

bostonerimus said:

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

You only mention the success stories for such a strategy, not the people who have failed. A well diversified portfolio is best for most people. It made me a millionaire and all the funds I ever invested in were diversified equity and bond funds. I'll never be a billionaire, but I don't need to be one as I'm still financially independent which was my goal.

Aa Everyone could become a millionaire if they keep adding money until at least a million in the stock market, they have assets in value of at least 1mil does not he ?? 
b) You do not even need to invest in the stock market to become a millionaire.  Everyone with income exceeding the outgoing spending will be financially independent does not he.

c) What matter is do you outperform the return from the market.

d) I never say people do not need to diversity I am just confronting the view of the urban myth that excessive diversification is a good strategy for those whose aim is to grow their wealth which I believe the aim of majority of people  when investing. Otherwise why not just keep it all in saving account, safe and secure, risk free.

....

d) I do not understand the concept of excessive diversification.  One can have inappropriate diversification or insufficient diversification.  Your understanding of diversification seems somewhat limited.  It is not simply a matter of % bond funds but rather how do you minimise risk by investing in as broad a range of assets as possible whilst still meeting your objectives.

Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, better to use a well known figure, proven investors.  This guy is your opponent. Please do contact him what he means with that.

Someone limited knowledge might exceed the knowledge of other random guy on the internet. Does anyone need a lot of efforts to understand what diversification mean in investing?? Those who don't have a basic understanding should not be getting involved in investing in the first instance.

ChatGPT, Investopedia are to start with. There are a lot of authoritative sources out there.

But even using authoritative sources people still arguing, thinking they are better than this proven billionaire investor, let alone if you are just a random guy on the internet arguing with another random guy in the internet.

Linton

adindas said:

Linton said:

adindas said:

bostonerimus said:

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

You only mention the success stories for such a strategy, not the people who have failed. A well diversified portfolio is best for most people. It made me a millionaire and all the funds I ever invested in were diversified equity and bond funds. I'll never be a billionaire, but I don't need to be one as I'm still financially independent which was my goal.

Aa Everyone could become a millionaire if they keep adding money until at least a million in the stock market, they have assets in value of at least 1mil does not he ?? 
b) You do not even need to invest in the stock market to become a millionaire.  Everyone with income exceeding the outgoing spending will be financially independent does not he.

c) What matter is do you outperform the return from the market.

d) I never say people do not need to diversity I am just confronting the view of the urban myth that excessive diversification is a good strategy for those whose aim is to grow their wealth which I believe the aim of majority of people  when investing. Otherwise why not just keep it all in saving account, safe and secure, risk free.

....

d) I do not understand the concept of excessive diversification.  One can have inappropriate diversification or insufficient diversification.  Your understanding of diversification seems somewhat limited.  It is not simply a matter of % bond funds but rather how do you minimise risk by investing in as broad a range of assets as possible whilst still meeting your objectives.

Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, better to use a well known figure, proven investors.  This guy is your opponent. Please do contact him what he means with that.

Someone limited knowledge might exceed the knowledge of other random guy on the internet. Does anyone need a lot of efforts to understand what diversification mean in investing?? Those who don't have basic understanding should not be getting involved in investing in the first instance.

ChatGPT, Investopedia for the beginning. And there are a lot of sources.

Oh well, I waiting a lot of dislike posting autorotative source like this. But even using authoritative sources people still still arguing, let alone if you are just a random guy on the internet.

If you want to become another Warren Buffer you need to do a little more than pick random quotes from him and blindly follow them.  Do you have the skills and the money to do the rest of what being a Warren Buffet involves? 

adindas

Linton said:

adindas said:

Linton said:

adindas said:

bostonerimus said:

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

You only mention the success stories for such a strategy, not the people who have failed. A well diversified portfolio is best for most people. It made me a millionaire and all the funds I ever invested in were diversified equity and bond funds. I'll never be a billionaire, but I don't need to be one as I'm still financially independent which was my goal.

Aa Everyone could become a millionaire if they keep adding money until at least a million in the stock market, they have assets in value of at least 1mil does not he ?? 
b) You do not even need to invest in the stock market to become a millionaire.  Everyone with income exceeding the outgoing spending will be financially independent does not he.

c) What matter is do you outperform the return from the market.

d) I never say people do not need to diversity I am just confronting the view of the urban myth that excessive diversification is a good strategy for those whose aim is to grow their wealth which I believe the aim of majority of people  when investing. Otherwise why not just keep it all in saving account, safe and secure, risk free.

....

d) I do not understand the concept of excessive diversification.  One can have inappropriate diversification or insufficient diversification.  Your understanding of diversification seems somewhat limited.  It is not simply a matter of % bond funds but rather how do you minimise risk by investing in as broad a range of assets as possible whilst still meeting your objectives.

Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, better to use a well known figure, proven investors.  This guy is your opponent. Please do contact him what he means with that.

Someone limited knowledge might exceed the knowledge of other random guy on the internet. Does anyone need a lot of efforts to understand what diversification mean in investing?? Those who don't have basic understanding should not be getting involved in investing in the first instance.

ChatGPT, Investopedia for the beginning. And there are a lot of sources.

Oh well, I waiting a lot of dislike posting autorotative source like this. But even using authoritative sources people still still arguing, let alone if you are just a random guy on the internet.

If you want to become another Warren Buffer you need to do a little more than pick random quotes from him and blindly follow them.  Do you have the skills and the money to do the rest of what being a Warren Buffet involves? 

Did I ever say I want to become another Warren Buffet. How did you know that I blindly following him. I follow and learn strategies of various Proven billionaire investor, not from random guy from the internet.
Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, it is better to use the wisdom from a proven investors, isn't it ?

eskbanker

adindas said:
Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, it is better to use the wisdom from a proven investors, isn't it ?

Only if you believe that professional deep-pocketed investors employing vast armies of analysts are relevant to small-time UK investors who aren't interested in trying to shoot the lights out by picking winners but have reasonably specific objectives in mind (such as achieving average returns).

Linton

adindas said:

Linton said:

adindas said:

Linton said:

adindas said:

bostonerimus said:

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

You only mention the success stories for such a strategy, not the people who have failed. A well diversified portfolio is best for most people. It made me a millionaire and all the funds I ever invested in were diversified equity and bond funds. I'll never be a billionaire, but I don't need to be one as I'm still financially independent which was my goal.

Aa Everyone could become a millionaire if they keep adding money until at least a million in the stock market, they have assets in value of at least 1mil does not he ?? 
b) You do not even need to invest in the stock market to become a millionaire.  Everyone with income exceeding the outgoing spending will be financially independent does not he.

c) What matter is do you outperform the return from the market.

d) I never say people do not need to diversity I am just confronting the view of the urban myth that excessive diversification is a good strategy for those whose aim is to grow their wealth which I believe the aim of majority of people  when investing. Otherwise why not just keep it all in saving account, safe and secure, risk free.

....

d) I do not understand the concept of excessive diversification.  One can have inappropriate diversification or insufficient diversification.  Your understanding of diversification seems somewhat limited.  It is not simply a matter of % bond funds but rather how do you minimise risk by investing in as broad a range of assets as possible whilst still meeting your objectives.

Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, better to use a well known figure, proven investors.  This guy is your opponent. Please do contact him what he means with that.

Someone limited knowledge might exceed the knowledge of other random guy on the internet. Does anyone need a lot of efforts to understand what diversification mean in investing?? Those who don't have basic understanding should not be getting involved in investing in the first instance.

ChatGPT, Investopedia for the beginning. And there are a lot of sources.

Oh well, I waiting a lot of dislike posting autorotative source like this. But even using authoritative sources people still still arguing, let alone if you are just a random guy on the internet.

If you want to become another Warren Buffer you need to do a little more than pick random quotes from him and blindly follow them.  Do you have the skills and the money to do the rest of what being a Warren Buffet involves? 

Did I ever say I want to become another Warren Buffet. How did you know that I blindly following him. I follow and learn strategies of various Proven billionaire investor, not from random guy from the internet.
Rather than getting involved in a never ended argument with random guy on the internet, it is better to use the wisdom from a proven investors, isn't it ?

But perhaps it would be prudent to balance this with the experience of investors who had highly undiversified investments and failed miserably.  Trouble is the winners tend to trumpet their success and lthe losers keep quiet.

bostonerimus

adindas said:

bostonerimus said:

adindas said:

msallen said:

adindas said:

It will depend on you definition of better. There are a lot of funds, individual stocks are currently performing better than Blackrock Consensus 100 and Vanguard LifeStrategy 100.

And ...?  As those funds are very diversified they will achieve a form of "average" return. That being the case there are bound to be lots of things that have recently performed better, and a roughly similar amount that have performed worse.

Correct if it is randomly chosen, not with strategic and methodical ways. And I do not need to repeat about diversification again and again. Excessive diversifications are not a good investment strategy. This is not me saying that it is strategy from billionaires proven investors such as Warren Buffett Charlie, Munger, Peter Lynch, Bill Ackman, Howard Marks, Jim Simons, John Templeton, etc. Most of these proven billionaires investors are contrarians and contrarian do not do excessive diversification.

That is the strategy they have been applying for years. Search it, there are already a lot of links about this in this saving and investment forum.

Some same group of people in this MSE do not like if there is reminder again what these proven billionaires investors have been saying so I suggest you search from previous posts.

You only mention the success stories for such a strategy, not the people who have failed. A well diversified portfolio is best for most people. It made me a millionaire and all the funds I ever invested in were diversified equity and bond funds. I'll never be a billionaire, but I don't need to be one as I'm still financially independent which was my goal.

Everyone could become a millionaire if they keep adding money until at least a million in the stock market, they have assets in value of at least 1mil does not he ??

You do not even need to invest in the stock market to become a millionaire.

Everyone with income exceeding the outgoing spending will be financially independent does not he.

What matter is do you outperform the return from the market.

I never say people do not need to diversity I am just confronting the view of the urban myth that excessive diversification is a good strategy for those whose aim is to grow their wealth which I believe the aim of majority of people  when investing. Otherwise why not just keep it all in saving account, safe and secure, risk free.

This is historical return from s&p 500 and T-Bonds. Observe it for those who believe in excessive diversification dilute your return with multi assets diversification and draw you conclusion if you do not diversify it for instance by adding bonds..

Historically you add bonds not to increase potential gain, but to lessen risk and variation. That won't be the case in times of quickly increasing interest rates, but if you hold them until maturity you will be made whole. This all comes down to the "efficient frontier" and that's something we can discuss sensibly for the average investor. Most people cannot learn much from  the strategies of most billionaires; Warren Buffet being the exception as he would just but S&P500 which I think is a legitimate strategy if you live in the US, but I'd be a bit more diverse geographically. I certainly agree that people don't need to own everything and just a few index funds will be fine - a 4 index fund portfolio worked for me and by saving a lot and being sensible I managed the gains shown in your table so it is a given that my portfolio has grown to the mid 7 figures, so this investing lark seems pretty simple to me.