Where would you put 150k in investments now?

eskbanker

It seems unlikely that this little digression is actually going anywhere helpful for OP, but happy to clarify that a more verbose version of my question would be "Against which of its competitors, i.e. peer OEICs holding global equities, would VLS100 be objectively considered 'good' and on what basis?".

booneruk

solidpro said:

booneruk said:

solidpro said:

I thought 10% return was usually 'too good to be true'. or 'possible scam'? 

Anything proposing a 10% return risk free is generally going to be a scam

You're right. The past 5 years of VLS100 is 'going to be a scam'.

Care to show me where VLS100 guarantees a 10% return? (ie: no risk)

solidpro

eskbanker said:

It seems unlikely that this little digression is actually going anywhere helpful for OP, but happy to clarify that a more verbose version of my question would be "Against which of its competitors, i.e. peer OEICs holding global equities, would VLS100 be objectively considered 'good' and on what basis?".

And in the interests of time saved, I'd respond in an equally verbose way by saying that indeed 10% is generally 'good' in any 'benchmark' of passively 'making money' in 100% equities.

eskbanker

solidpro said:

eskbanker said:

It seems unlikely that this little digression is actually going anywhere helpful for OP, but happy to clarify that a more verbose version of my question would be "Against which of its competitors, i.e. peer OEICs holding global equities, would VLS100 be objectively considered 'good' and on what basis?".

And in the interests of time saved, I'd respond in an equally verbose way by saying that indeed 10% is generally 'good' in any 'benchmark' of passively 'making money' in 100% equities.

If you're measuring specifically on performance over the past few years, any meaningful effort to benchmark VLS100 entails assessing how many comparable passive global equity products returned more than 10% over the same period and how many less, rather than blindly asserting that 10% is 'good' in a vacuum....

For example, looking (on Trustnet) at the figures for the five years up to yesterday, VLS100's return is 57.2%, below popular low-cost global equity trackers such as Vanguard's FTSE Global All Cap (61.1%) and HSBC FTSE All World (66.1%).  That's not to say that those are the only benchmark to use, and there are a variety of index choices, but that was my original question, i.e. against which competitors would VLS100 be objectively evaluated as 'good'?

solidpro

The reason I did well at engineering is I could be in a room of 99 other engineers but I was the only one who could see regular people's eyes glazing over as the 99 other people got verbose, bogged down in inane detail, sometimes combative and often patronising. As I moved up from role to role, I became aware that there were a lot of engineers techinically more proficient than me, but lacked the perserverance, the stamina or the ability to communicate to those around them. They're all either dead or working the same roles as they were 20 years ago. And they're happy in their rut. But I'm the only one who has paid off his mortgage.

When I come here and say 10% profit backed up by counting is 'good' you could agree and we all move on. But instead you say 

"If you're measuring specifically on performance over the past few years, any meaningful effort to benchmark VLS100 entails assessing how many comparable passive global equity products returned more than 10% over the same period and how many less, rather than blindly asserting that 10% is 'good' in a vacuum...."

I don't know what any of that means because I really don't care, because 10% as a benchmark, in this case, is good enough. 

InvesterJones

solidpro said:

I don't know what any of that means because I really don't care, because 10% is good enough. 

OK, so your criteria for good enough is simply 10%, in which case, you'd go for the cheapest fund available that achieved 10% in the same comparison, right?

solidpro

InvesterJones said:

OK, so your criteria for good enough is simply 10%, in which case, you'd go for the cheapest fund available that achieved 10% in the same comparison, right?

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

InvesterJones

solidpro said:

InvesterJones said:

OK, so your criteria for good enough is simply 10%, in which case, you'd go for the cheapest fund available that achieved 10% in the same comparison, right?

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

Of course, but you mentioned 10% past performance as good enough. If not, what is your criteria now?

solidpro

That was my benchmark. Eskbanker asked for a benchmark. I gave one based on counting.

You can argue that 10% isn't good enough, or it's not a benchmark because I haven't listed a bunch of other comparitive funds, or you can argue that it's not risk free for a 100% equity investment, or you can argue that 10% is 'going to be a scam', but one thing you can't ask me to do is to get bogged down with verbose segues which are brutally off topic.

solidpro

eskbanker said:

If you're measuring specifically on performance over the past few years, any meaningful effort to benchmark VLS100 entails assessing how many comparable passive global equity products returned more than 10% over the same period and how many less, rather than blindly asserting that 10% is 'good' in a vacuum....

For example, looking (on Trustnet) at the figures for the five years up to yesterday, VLS100's return is 57.2%, below popular low-cost global equity trackers such as Vanguard's FTSE Global All Cap (61.1%) and HSBC FTSE All World (66.1%).  That's not to say that those are the only benchmark to use, and there are a variety of index choices, but that was my original question, i.e. against which competitors would VLS100 be objectively evaluated as 'good'?

Comparing just 2 low-cost equity trackers against VLS100 without explaining what low-cost means by comparison and without comparing to a wider pool of more than simply 2 companies, and simply/only over a 5 year timeframe, when most people should be considering investments in decades, not 5 years, along with the fact that any reasoning in this vaccum that a fund with 0.9% difference is 'better' is a bit like blindly asserting that  one fund's 10% is good. In a vaccum.