Forum Home» Pensions, Annuities & Retirement Planning

Views on Royal London Governed Portfolio - Page 10

New Post Advanced Search

Views on Royal London Governed Portfolio

110 replies 9.4K views
1567810

Replies

  • edited 12 December 2019 at 4:11AM
    MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    edited 12 December 2019 at 4:11AM
    50% drawdown?
    No Royal London Fund has EVER had this.

    How about you illustrate this claim with several stock based Royal London Fund performances in the 1930s and 2008. The funds quoted here seem to be very recent and never experienced a bear market.

    By the way, anyone believing that drawdown of 50% is impossible is unfamiliar with stock market history.

    A few facts:

    1. For the nearly quarter century between January 1990 and June 2013, large cap Japanese stocks experienced a return (in real terms) of -58.2%. The specific Royal London fund is dominated by equity from just 2 countries. Short term 50% drawdowns in equities are not all that rare. A 50% drawdown was seen during the 2008 to 2009 market. Property went down even more. A tiny percentage of bonds present in this fund would have been neither here nor there.

    2. I said that an individual must be able to withstand 50% drawdowns. Anyone familiar with performance of equity-dominated funds ought to be aware of this. Behavioural issues are the downfall of most investors. The number one long term risk for a young person is that he can’t withstand the scale of the drawdown of an overly aggressive portfolio and stops investing in equities altogether. Many do.

    3.
    You clearly do not understand the range or why they have risk ratings described as 'Moderately Cautious' and 'Balanced' for the same portfolio.
    That is true. I don’t understand. I believe it is highly misleading. Typically balanced funds hold 30 to 50% bonds. A fund with just 10% bonds is royally unbalanced.
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    You quote low charges but Royal London are incredibly low for a risk rate, re-balanced, and actively managed fund. The prices you have quoted are for Tracker Funds, a completely different proposition.

    It’s not unreasonable to compare charges for actively and passively managed funds. After all, higher charges for active funds are one of the reasons most active funds underperform.
  • craig1912craig1912 Forumite
    42 posts
    Seventh Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Mordko wrote: »
    ^ That’s a personal attack, which is against forum rules. Peculiar that it’s your very first post ever.
    It’s not though, it’s a fact.

    I’ve read through this thread as my IFA moved me to RL earlier this year and some of your comments are misleading and factually incorrect.

    To the OP I would rely on “Son ofs” comments if I were you.
  • coyrlscoyrls Forumite
    1.7K posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭
    This thread has been dead for 2 months, why revive it?
  • edited 12 December 2019 at 1:39PM
    MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    edited 12 December 2019 at 1:39PM
    craig1912 wrote: »
    It’s not though, it’s a fact.

    I’ve read through this thread as my IFA moved me to RL earlier this year and some of your comments are misleading and factually incorrect. And no, the fact that your IFA moved you to this provider, does not make any of my comments incorrect.

    To the OP I would rely on “Son ofs” comments if I were you.

    Fact is something that is proven to be true. Which of my comments are “factually incorrect”? Who proved it? Be specific.

    The OP (and you) should make your own choices as everyone here is expressing an opinion. People learn from a discussion. And I understand the emotive need to believe that you made the right choice but attacking someone with a different view as having “little knowledge” and spewing “utter nonsense” is a personal attack and anything but”fact”.
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    coyrls wrote: »
    This thread has been dead for 2 months, why revive it?

    Also a good point. A little weird that a new person comes in and with his very first post makes a personal attack on an old thread.
  • Mordko wrote: »
    How about you illustrate this claim with several stock based Royal London Fund performances in the 1930s and 2008. The funds quoted here seem to be very recent and never experienced a bear market.

    By the way, anyone believing that drawdown of 50% is impossible is unfamiliar with stock market history.

    A few facts:

    1. For the nearly quarter century between January 1990 and June 2013, large cap Japanese stocks experienced a return (in real terms) of -58.2%. The specific Royal London fund is dominated by equity from just 2 countries. Short term 50% drawdowns in equities are not all that rare. A 50% drawdown was seen during the 2008 to 2009 market. Property went down even more. A tiny percentage of bonds present in this fund would have been neither here nor there.

    2. I said that an individual must be able to withstand 50% drawdowns. Anyone familiar with performance of equity-dominated funds ought to be aware of this. Behavioural issues are the downfall of most investors. The number one long term risk for a young person is that he can’t withstand the scale of the drawdown of an overly aggressive portfolio and stops investing in equities altogether. Many do.

    3. That is true. I don’t understand. I believe it is highly misleading. Typically balanced funds hold 30 to 50% bonds. A fund with just 10% bonds is royally unbalanced.


    Okay chap, I appreciate you hate someone who actually knows what they are talking about (yes, I am qualified and have dozens of exams and decades of experience) coming in and seeing fact from fiction.


    As to the personal thing and not part of the "site rules"? Oh boohoo. I would rather someone point out when someone is being incorrect and pretending to know, than be polite, which I think is the point of this forum?



    Basically you are out of your depth. Challenging me by asking for proof that includes the 1930's shows this.


    Trying to use a strawman argument (eg Japan - likely to less that 1% of a balanced Royal London Pension (RLP) argument simply highlights your desperation.



    Like 'Son of', I will try to explain.


    RLP are very good pensions, make sure you use their Governed Portfolio ranges, which, dependent on how close to retirement you are will dictate what number you are in.


    If you do not have an IFA (I thought you needed one to have a RLP) then you can select 'lifestyling', which means your pension will automatically switch from Equities (shares) to low risk investments the closer you get to retirement (Be careful of this and choose 'until 5 years from retirement' as you are unlikely to want to buy an annuity at retirement so don't want all your money in Cash at your retirement age)
  • Mordko wrote: »
    Fact is something that is proven to be true. Which of my comments are “factually incorrect”? Who proved it? Be specific.

    The OP (and you) should make your own choices as everyone here is expressing an opinion. People learn from a discussion. And I understand the emotive need to believe that you made the right choice but attacking someone with a different view as having “little knowledge” and spewing “utter nonsense” is a personal attack and anything but”fact”.




    To put his into context, I am qualified and, with respect, you are clearly not.


    Whilst it might be appreciated that you have made the effort to take so much time to 'help', as I said before, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.



    You, fair play, admit you do not understand why one fund fits two different attitudes to risk. Please let me explain, the answer is 'how long from retirement are you?'. You can, for example, be 'cautious', but if you have 15+ years to retirement should your pension investment mix look the same as a 'cautious' persons pension who is retiring next year? Clearly not.



    And I would hate to take advice from someone who does not understand that, as you yourself said you did not understand. Hence me being very clear that OP (or anyone else Googling as I did) should not take your very complex explanations as being a sign that you know what you are talking about.


    I would hate that.
  • Mordko wrote: »
    Also a good point. A little weird that a new person comes in and with his very first post makes a personal attack on an old thread.


    As part of my job I Googled and found this link, and quite frankly was horrified enough to comment, even though I thought no one would actually read it.


    Yes, I do care enough to have done that.
  • Mordko wrote: »
    How about you illustrate this claim with several stock based Royal London Fund performances in the 1930s and 2008. The funds quoted here seem to be very recent and never experienced a bear market.

    By the way, anyone believing that drawdown of 50% is impossible is unfamiliar with stock market history.

    A few facts:

    1. For the nearly quarter century between January 1990 and June 2013, large cap Japanese stocks experienced a return (in real terms) of -58.2%. The specific Royal London fund is dominated by equity from just 2 countries. Short term 50% drawdowns in equities are not all that rare. A 50% drawdown was seen during the 2008 to 2009 market. Property went down even more. A tiny percentage of bonds present in this fund would have been neither here nor there.

    2. I said that an individual must be able to withstand 50% drawdowns. Anyone familiar with performance of equity-dominated funds ought to be aware of this. Behavioural issues are the downfall of most investors. The number one long term risk for a young person is that he can’t withstand the scale of the drawdown of an overly aggressive portfolio and stops investing in equities altogether. Many do.

    3. That is true. I don’t understand. I believe it is highly misleading. Typically balanced funds hold 30 to 50% bonds. A fund with just 10% bonds is royally unbalanced.




    That is a LOT of words, but it would be more helpful if you could confirm what Royal London Pension fund has ever had a max drawdown of anywhere near 50%?


    Do you even know what their highest risk fund max drawdown is?



    I ask simply to help me and people reading your knowledgeable comments what we should expect. You clearly are an expert in these matters after all.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support