Vanguard Life Strategy performance

EthicsGradient

JohnWinder said:

your problem isn't whether you should have VLS or HSBC GS (Nutmeg seems a bit pointless but again its not your root problem). Your problem is looking at short term info when you need to be looking medium to long term.’

I’ll offer another perspective on this. If you saw the same disappointing performance of VLS vs HSBC GS over 10 or 12 years (is that ‘medium’ or ‘long’ enough?) you’d still be wrong to be making portfolio changes on that basis, if the ‘cycle’ is 15 years. And there are longer cycles too, such as value stocks outperforming growth stocks, or small vs large. 

That's a big "if". I don't know what the authority for "15 years" was, but you can always find another to disagree with any number you plump for: Business cycle - Wikipedia

boingy

EthicsGradient said:

JohnWinder said:

your problem isn't whether you should have VLS or HSBC GS (Nutmeg seems a bit pointless but again its not your root problem). Your problem is looking at short term info when you need to be looking medium to long term.’

I’ll offer another perspective on this. If you saw the same disappointing performance of VLS vs HSBC GS over 10 or 12 years (is that ‘medium’ or ‘long’ enough?) you’d still be wrong to be making portfolio changes on that basis, if the ‘cycle’ is 15 years. And there are longer cycles too, such as value stocks outperforming growth stocks, or small vs large. 

That's a big "if". I don't know what the authority for "15 years" was, but you can always find another to disagree with any number you plump for: Business cycle - Wikipedia

The trouble with economists talking about cycles is that they usually ignore the political landscape. Economies around the world are affected by changes of government and not just the govts in that particular country. The UK is heading for a major govt change next year and the future US govt is unfathomable at present. Then you have the Ukraine war and a China that is looking somewhat wobbly. Further into the future we've got the prospect of a major shift away from fossil fuels, which is going to have a huge effect on economies large and small, maybe even the largest economic "rebalancing" the world has ever seen.

So don't take notice of anyone who take about cycles as if they are predictable!

jicms

Bostonerimus1 said:

The Vanguard Life Strategy series are popular for a reason; they are relatively inexpensive and give you a diverse portfolio of stocks and bonds in a single fund. The last two years have been tough, VLS 60 and 80 have done better than many funds that had more bonds so be thankful you are not down 20%. Stick with them and get back in 10 years time.

That's good to hear. I've mostly read about the investors reporting great gains from single investments rather than funds. 

JohnWinder

...

 if the ‘cycle’ is 15 years. And there are longer cycles too, such as value stocks outperforming growth stocks, or small vs large. 

That's a big "if". I don't know what the authority for "15 years" was, but you can always find another to disagree with any number you plump for: Business cycle - Wikipedia

So don't take notice of anyone who take about cycles as if they are predictable!

The ‘authority’ such as it is was in a post up thread citing 15 years; I claim to know nothing of business or other cycles. My clumsy point was that there can be long periods (?cycles) when what happens goes against perceived wisdom: US govt bonds outperforming stocks for 30 years (ending in 2011); small cap value stocks, despite a theoretical advantage, underperforming big stocks for 17 years (ending in 2001). From which I’m suggesting that a long period of VLS being out-gunned doesn’t mean it’s a second rate choice.

That’s about observed historical ‘cycles’. It’s nothing to do with pundits predicting cycles.