Where would you put 150k in investments now?

kempiejon

@MeteredOut & @booneruk While the numbers bear out the all in lump sum is generally best, for any specific case it is possible now is not a good time. When I had a lump sum it helped me stay relaxed about my investments by spreading out the payments over 2 years buying quarterly and rebalancing my portfolio at each stage.

Baldytyke88

Linton said:

People have such short memories!

In 2007 IUKD fell by 60%, regaining its 2007 value in 2014 with dividends reinvested.  If you were taking dividends the capital value would now, some 17 years later, still be some 40% below its 2007 value.

The problem was that in 2007 the UK banks were the major dividend payers in the market.  Then we had the GFC.

After a few years of political instability, we now have that stability to allow the UK stock market to thrive.

Although what is happening in the Middle East is concerning.

dunstonh

After a few years of political instability, we now have that stability to allow the UK stock market to thrive.

The UK stock market is weighted to financials and energy. Neither of which is getting any decent vibes from the new Government.  

InvesterJones

Baldytyke88 said:

Linton said:

People have such short memories!

In 2007 IUKD fell by 60%, regaining its 2007 value in 2014 with dividends reinvested.  If you were taking dividends the capital value would now, some 17 years later, still be some 40% below its 2007 value.

The problem was that in 2007 the UK banks were the major dividend payers in the market.  Then we had the GFC.

After a few years of political instability, we now have that stability to allow the UK stock market to thrive.

Although what is happening in the Middle East is concerning.

You think the global financial crisis was caused by political instability??

aroominyork

dunstonh said:

After a few years of political instability, we now have that stability to allow the UK stock market to thrive.

The UK stock market is weighted to financials and energy. Neither of which is getting any decent vibes from the new Government.  

Which is why people who want to invest in the wider UK economy rather than the UK stock market look at mid-caps and small-caps.

GazzaBloom

ColdIron said:

Nevbear said:

I was thinking vanguard S&P 500 ucits etf but don’t know what effect recent volatility would mean for this right now? Would an all world fund be better?

Why have you excluded the UK, Europe, Japan, Asia Pacific and Emerging Markets? All your money in one country is very high risk. Even if you went for all world that's still 100% equities, much higher than the risk tolerance of most investors. What is your capacity for loss?

Why is 'recent volatility' and 'right now' important 'For long term not short term use'?

What do you mean by 'Pensions full'?

Are you a tax payer and if so what band? Are you in employment?

Why do you think that holding the S&P500 is holding “all your money in one country”?

40% of S&P500 companies revenues come from outside the US. How many of these companies products do you see in just about every country you visit? Coca-Cola, iPhones, Teslas, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, American Express…etc. Currency exposure to USD is more of a concern for me when holding the S&P500.

A common misconception is that being listed on a US stock exchange means being a solely US company. Same misconception is made with the FTSE100 being just UK.

JohnWinder

I don't know which side of that argument is right, but this article argues US stocks don't reflect the global market very well. https://www.ifa.com/articles/global-diversification-international-securities

valueman1

Warren Buffett recommends just investing in the S&P index tracker and I wouldn’t bet against him.  The idea being US companies have an advantage over other countries due to the size of the domestic market. Also the US government fiercely protects US companies.  Note how difficult other governments have found it trying to impose a sales tax on US tech companies, this is due to the reaction of the US government.

booneruk

In the long term, backing an index fund in a successful economy is going to result in profit (although this isn't what Buffet has done himself, he's always snapped up companies he sees as cheap and quality).

I suspect a lot of people going all in on the S&P 500 would soon lose their nerve if they were back in mid 2000. It took about 12 years for that index to fully recover after the dotcom crash. The US market is also currently overpriced when compared against any historical measure.

A global index tracker is still going to have a significant weighting of the S&P500 top dogs, and would probably result in better nights sleep for most due to its more diversified nature.

kempiejon

valueman1 said:

Warren Buffett recommends just investing in the S&P index tracker and I wouldn’t bet against him.  The idea being US companies have an advantage over other countries due to the size of the domestic market. Also the US government fiercely protects US companies.  Note how difficult other governments have found it trying to impose a sales tax on US tech companies, this is due to the reaction of the US government.

I like Warren's plans but remember that isn't how he made his billions. It's the advice he gave to the fund that would look after his wife's legacy should he pre decease her and it was to include 10% US Government bonds, I guess sequence of returns risk mitigation? He didn't predecease her. For an easy answer it's good advice for most people and historically beat an awful lots (majority?) of other strategies over the longer term.

I hold a US tracker as part of my global allocation to stocks alongside my other regions and assets. Looking under the hood the S&P holds something like a third of the total in 6 stocks. Those ubiquitous tech, AI names like Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and the gates gang. 

The past is no indicator of the future but my India ETF is beating my USA on most time periods from 3 months to 5 years. India is smaller than US in my portfolio.