We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Best Junior Stocks and Shares ISA 2025?

2»

Comments

  • Albermarle
    Albermarle Posts: 28,937 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Name Dropper
    blowzy said:
    blowzy said:
    Two popular ranges are ;
    Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy.

    Both offer a range of about five.
    The ones with a low equity ( shares) % are referred to as Cautious and those with a High % as Adventurous ( or something like that.

    Both are available on the HL and Fidelity platforms. In fact the latter has its own low cost multi asset funds. ( Fidelity multi asset allocator.

    Fees for all of them are around 0.2%
    1) Why is Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC Global Strategy better than investing in the S&P 500 or 
    Vanguard Funds Plc FTSE All-World UCITS ETF
    2) Which is better out of Vanguard LifeStrategy and HSBC global strategy. I heard passive management is better than active? but vanguard has a home bias?
    Regarding question 1) No investment is 'better' than another one. It is which is most appropriate for the situation/person involved.
    The two you mention are 100% equity. This means that they are more suitable for the long term ( > 10 years) and for people with strong nerves as they can drop alarmingly in a stock market crash. The S&P one is more risky than the All world one ,as it is more concentrated.
    2) Multi asset funds normally have less than 100% equity ( it ranges from 20% to 90%) , this makes them less volatile ( which many people prefer )and better if the time scale is a bit less than 10 years. They use a blend of passive trackers, but you are right there is a level of active management involved . Life Strategy has a home bias but the % equity always stays the same ( So VLS 60 will always have 60% equity) . HSBC GS varies the equity within a tightish range .
    So it is not true active management, a kind of active/passive , or passive/active. 

    Note the fund VLS 100 is a bit of an odd one out, so unlike all the other LS products it is 100% equity , but it still has a home bias.
    Regarding home bias, in the past few years HSBC GS have outperformed their VLS equivalents by about 1 % pa, but it can easily turn around the other way.
    thanks for the response! As this money will likely be saved long term, would It be more sensible to go for the global fund? Also I have around £850  worth of shares in the L&G tracker trust in the CTF at the moment. As I am looking to transfer, should I sell this and invest the money into the global?
    Probably yes, as long as you keep in mind it could drop alarmingly at some point.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.