A complementary fund for Vanguard Lifestrategy 80?

dunstonh

I hope your VLS80 is doing better than mine currently is.
I accept it's a long journey, however, nearly two years in and its current value is still less than my deposits, thanks to world events.

My two years old VLS100 though is rocking atm 🤷‍♂️🤣

Don't worry.   VLS100 can lose far more than the multi-asset funds did last year.  A 50% loss will make the multi-asset fund losses look tiny by comparison.

 I'd like to add a fund to complement it.

Why?
What is wrong with VLS80 that you feel is inappropriate for your needs?     If we know where you think it fails your objectives, then we could perhaps offer suitable alternatives (or educate you on why you are wrong)

hewhohuntselves

Thank you.  In response to the question of why I am dissatisfied with VLS, I'm not, rather I have a concern about everything being in one wrapper and subject one company's approach.  While VLS is not active, the composition of the fund - such as the UK bias are still the result of choices made by Vanguard.

dunstonh

  In response to the question of why I am dissatisfied with VLS, I'm not, rather I have a concern about everything being in one wrapper and subject one company's approach.

The VLS range is structured portfolios designed to work to a specific strategy.  They are meant to be a one-shot solution without the need to add in satellite funds.   

While VLS is not active, the composition of the fund - such as the UK bias are still the result of choices made by Vanguard.

Technically, it is active.   Sometimes, these are referred to as active passives.  It may use underlying passives but it makes active decisions on the ratios used and the UK bias is one that can be marmite.      This is why HSBC GS range is often considered a better solution (plus its cheaper).    At the end of the day, everybody who uses passives, makes active decisions on the ratios or any biases they have or areas they leave out or include.   

Maybe the focus should be on the core fund. if you get that right, then there is no need to mess around with alternatives.

Albermarle

Maybe the focus should be on the core fund. if you get that right, then there is no need to mess around with alternatives

Personally I like to hedge my bets, so have more than one similar multi asset funds. Partly because I have 3 DC pensions and two have a restricted investment range. However I can not see a big problem in holding say VLS and HSBC GS at the same time. There is almost zero extra hassle and  normally no extra charges involved.
If that is what the OP wants to do, it will probably cause them no harm at least.

coastline

There's a possibility of a 50% crash in a 100% equity portfolio . It's happened in the past but they've been a decade or so apart. The idea of a multi asset portfolio offering more protection maybe true but in a huge market crash I'd bet it would still be down 30%. Once you're in the market you're in. If you're not happy with such moves then markets aren't for you. Ultra cautious is all you can do.
From Trustnet a ballpark example below . Set to 5 years and 10 years then to Nov 2004 . That's as far back as I can get it but it illustrates the point . A balanced portfolio has still caused people headaches in a crash. 

Chart Tool | Trustnet

Not exactly plain sailing with gilts either. It's ok hearing " well it had to happen one day " but when it did happen . Bang !! No different from equity crash. It'll take years to recover and I'd imagine an equity portfolio would recover quicker ? Apart from the slump in 2020 onwards there's still volatile periods with gilts even 15% a year moves.

Vanguard UK Gilt UCITS ETF, UK:VGOV Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:VGOV, Vanguard UK Gilt UCITS ETF Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)