IA 40%-85% Index

LoveWalking

Where can I find historical values for the IA 40%-85% index.

flaneurs_lobster

LoveWalking said:

Where can I find historical values for the IA 40%-85% index.

Hello

Try the Financial Times.

You're welcome

eskbanker

LoveWalking said:

Where can I find historical values for the IA 40%-85% index.

Isn't it a (broad) sector rather than an index as such?

dunstonh

LoveWalking said:

Where can I find historical values for the IA 40%-85% index.

Its not an index.  It is a sector.    You would look at sector average.  However, its such a wide range sector that it's completely worthless to look at sector average.   If you took a typical 1 - 10 risk scale, you would have funds from risk 3 through to 8 in that sector.   i.e. 40% equity through to 85% equity.      So, performance comparisons are pointless in isolation.

LoveWalking

Hello @dunstonh

Thank you for your your reply - I accept what you say.
If you go to https://www2.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx?typeCode=FACFDQ,XO:BALMAN you see a graph showing the 'performance' for the 'IA Mixed Investment 40-85% Shares'. From what you say I assune that this is an average for the sector.  I like to compare this with my ISA portfolio so the historical values of Cumulative Performance (going back to 2014) would be useful.

dunstonh

 From what you say I assune that this is an average for the sector

Correct.

.  I like to compare this with my ISA portfolio so the historical values of Cumulative Performance (going back to 2014) would be useful.

Use a better benchmark.   It may actually be better to look at your equity content and compare it with the closest vanguard lifestrategy fund or HSBC Global strategy fund

If you look at the funds in the 40-85 mixed sector, then the higher the equity content, the more likely you are to be above the sector avearge and the lower the equity content, the more likely you are to be below it.      It is unlikely that the sector average reflects your portfolio in a meaningful way.

LoveWalking

Hello @dunstonh

What you say makes sense. Thank you.

Linton

Also the boundaries for the mixed investment sectors overlap so I guess if possible a fund would prefer to be in a lower % sector than a higher one as it should show an above average performance compared with its peers.  This would skew the figures.

Cus

There was a trustnet article that stated that Lifestrategy 80% was the second best performing multiasset fund for the last 10 years in that sector.  Tough benchmark to beat!

dunstonh

Cus said:

There was a trustnet article that stated that Lifestrategy 80% was the second best performing multiasset fund for the last 10 years in that sector.  Tough benchmark to beat!

After you said that, I thought I would have a play.

I knew it would be higher than the 40-85 average but we know that VLS80 is not the best-performing multi-asset fund.   So, I wondered what was first.    I guessed HSBC GS Dynamic (the closest equivalent)



Then it came to me that HSBC are in the volatility managed sector.   So, the similar but better fund is not in the same sector.  (another good reason for not relying on the mixed asset and volatility managed sectors as benchmarks)

So, I pulled the the sector list and sorted by 10 year return and it was 7th



If you include the Volatility Managed sector in there it gets pushed down to 9th.

Tough benchmark to beat!

Tough but that is what you are looking to beat effectively. And if you cannot beat it, then that is what you should go for.        Or maybe make it harder and use the HSBC GS range as your benchmark as they effectively the go-to multi-asset fund nowadays.

Cus

This was the article. I misread slightly, it refers to how many quartiles

https://www.trustnet.com/news/13383799/the-balanced-funds-that-might-have-benefitted-from-manager-skill-rather-than-luck