Plumetting Investment

dealyboy

I make do with one multi-asset fund ... HSBC Global Strategy (50:50 Dynamic:Balanced), I'm happy not to make decisions that are outside my understanding. The performance has been as I might expect given the aims and markets and I like the active balancing.

Ironically I made this choice before I got to recognise the wisdom of @dunstonh who I later discovered quite likes it for a person in my circumstances.

I once had no time for FAs but what I have learnt is that IFAs have the best interests of their clients at heart, there is no one size fits all and they are both highly qualified and highly regulated.

I like to think that I know when I don't know and don't know when I know ... um let me rephrase that ... 

Bostonerimus1

dealyboy said:

I make do with one multi-asset fund ... HSBC Global Strategy (50:50 Dynamic:Balanced), I'm happy not to make decisions that are outside my understanding. The performance has been as I might expect given the aims and markets and I like the active balancing.

Ironically I made this choice before I got to recognise the wisdom of @dunstonh who I later discovered quite likes it for a person in my circumstances.

I once had no time for FAs but what I have learnt is that IFAs have the best interests of their clients at heart, there is no one size fits all and they are both highly qualified and highly regulated.

I like to think that I know when I don't know and don't know when I know ... um let me rephrase that ... 

Your use of the term "make do" just shows how the finance industry has managed to drive the narrative that having more funds is better. Your HSBC fund has 80% of it's assets in 6 funds and I think holding those inside a multi-asset wrapper is a convenient way to get a ready made portfolio and an appropriate solution for most people. Whether the numerous holdings of 2% and less do much for the performance of the fund is debatable, but it's the way multi-asset funds operate so I shrug my shoulders. If you are employing an IFA/FA I think portfolio construction should be well down on the list of financial services you might expect from them. I think they should be acting more as personal finance coaches and advising with budgeting, pension and investing account basics, debt management, tax efficiency and insurance.

JohnWinder

Chiming back in. 

‘Applying this idea of constructing portfolios to meet objectives to my own investments….The overall portfolio consists of about 20 funds …. Finally there are 2 Wealth Protection funds…… Perhaps the OPs portfolio can be seen in a similar light.’

Perhaps it can, but until we hear from someone who knows about the portfolio in question my thumb’s not up.

It’s one thing for an individual, interested and engaged who knows the ropes to choose something complex and more expensive than other options, but it’s another to put ordinary folk into a such a regime if they don’t need it.

You are applying double standards.   You think its ok for the likes of Vanguard (to have 17 funds) but not ok for anyone else.’

Not sure it’s ‘double standards’. When HSBC put 17 funds into a single blended fund and charge an uncommonly low fee to completely look after every aspect of it, It’s very different from if the investor has to pay higher fees for some of the 17 as well as an annual slice of the action for a professional to do what HSBC does for sweet Fanny Adams.

‘I completed my annual PI renewal proposal last week and, as usual, concentration risk was part of it.  Questions on limits given to fund houses or funds were in there because the liability insurers are concerned about too much with one provider, fund house, country/region etc.

Look at this portfolio and use UK equity as an example as that is often an area that has a higher weighting allocated to it. They could use a single FTSE all share tracker.  However, it uses three index trackers for the core, each with different fund houses (Vanguard, L&G and Dimensional).   Has the use of three index trackers instead of one created an additional cost?  No.  

Now we’re getting to understand why the complexity. I don’t recall we’ve heard before that in the industry it’s considered too high risk for us to have a reputable tracker with only one fund house (LG in this case) if LG holds about 12% of your portfolio;  rather, you really should have three of these trackers. Is that the state of play now?

Qyburn

dealyboy said:

I make do with one multi-asset fund ... HSBC Global Strategy (50:50 Dynamic:Balanced), I'm happy not to make decisions that are outside my understanding. The performance has been as I might expect given the aims and markets and I like the active balancing.

Why the two, is it because you wanted something in between, or do you use them in different ways?

dealyboy

@Qyburn said:

dealyboy said:

I make do with one multi-asset fund ... HSBC Global Strategy (50:50 Dynamic:Balanced), I'm happy not to make decisions that are outside my understanding. The performance has been as I might expect given the aims and markets and I like the active balancing.

Why the two, is it because you wanted something in between, or do you use them in different ways?

... well spotted.

It wasn't planned in advance. I started with Balanced in an S&S ISA, added to it, and then decided that Dynamic might be more appropriate as I changed my horizon. I then opened a SIPP which is Dynamic only.

70% equities is about right for me. I have 6 years left before I might start accessing the funds.