HSBC Global Strategy Vs Vanguard LifeStrategy
Options
Comments
-
I don't think that is timing the market - it makes sense not to sell equities if possible in an equity crash. If you were to sell bonds rather than equities in that situation it would also help in rebalancing back to your original weightings. I agree that VLS type funds is the wrong type of funds if that is your strategy.
One can argue what makes sense, but selling only bonds during a crash is market timing.
It makes sense if the next market move is for the stocks to go up and for the bonds to go down. During an actual crash you don’t know what the next market move will be. The market might be in the very early stages of a protracted multi-year bear. In which case it would actually be less damaging to keep selling stocks.
A passive approach would be to keep your asset allocations constant, which does involve selling underperforming assets, exactly as VLS would do. Deviating from it = an attempt to actively manage your portfolio via market timing0 -
I agree that the best strategy is to keep your asset allocation constant whether you invest in a multi asset fund or have a single sector portfolio. Multi asset funds do that for you which is great. However if your investment portfolio is made up of single sector equity funds (either active or passive or a mix of both) amounting to say 60% of your portfolio, and separate bond funds amounting to 40% of your portfolio, the best drawdown strategy would be to sell whatever keeps your overall allocation at 60:40 whatever the state of the markets. I don't see that as market timing as I think that is the strategy most experienced advisers on here advise for single sector portfolios.Deleted_User wrote: »One can argue what makes sense, but selling only bonds during a crash is market timing.
It makes sense if the next market move is for the stocks to go up and for the bonds to go down. During an actual crash you don’t know what the next market move will be. The market might be in the very early stages of a protracted multi-year bear. In which case it would actually be less damaging to keep selling stocks.
A passive approach would be to keep your asset allocations constant, which does involve selling underperforming assets, exactly as VLS would do. Deviating from it = an attempt to actively manage your portfolio via market timing0 -
I agree that the best strategy is to keep your asset allocation constant whether you invest in a multi asset fund or have a single sector portfolio. Multi asset funds do that for you which is great. However if your investment portfolio is made up of single sector equity funds (either active or passive or a mix of both) amounting to say 60% of your portfolio, and separate bond funds amounting to 40% of your portfolio, the best drawdown strategy would be to sell whatever keeps your overall allocation at 60:40 whatever the state of the markets. I don't see that as market timing as I think that is the strategy most experienced advisers on here advise for single sector portfolios.
There are different ways of keeping asset allocation constant. Using VLS would achieve that, including when you sell VLS units during a crash. A comment above stated they saw sale of VLS units as a problem as they include stocks, hence wanted to deviate from VLS asset allocation during a crash. That would be timing. Ok?0 -
Sorry to butt in on this thread but is the HSBC GS Balanced a passive tracker fund? The info I've seen says "actively managed", "volatility managed" but in other places "team managed" so I'm a little confused.
I'm looking for one fund to open a S&S Isa with. Thanks.Mortgage - £23,500 remaining
MFW2021 #8 - £2,519.77/£3,000
Overpayments: 2020 - £4,722.83 / 2019 - £16,042.000 -
The questions are getting easier as the thread goes on......don't let it end.
Three seconds of skimming into the HSBC Key Investor Information is: 'The Fund is actively managed and is not managed with reference to a specific benchmark.'
So it's actively managed, as you say. Can't find a meaning for 'team managed' anywhere. Perhaps look in the footnotes where you read it, but it doesn't imply index tracker to me.0 -
Sorry to butt in on this thread but is the HSBC GS Balanced a passive tracker fund? The info I've seen says "actively managed", "volatility managed" but in other places "team managed" so I'm a little confused.
I'm looking for one fund to open a S&S Isa with. Thanks.
Surely "team managed" simply means there isn't one possibly iconoclastic / off the rails /reckless manager ? So its an attempt to calm your fears there might be one incompetent individual in charge.0 -
The GS Balanced fund is itself made up of several underlying passive tracker funds/etfs.......the relative amounts of each underlying fund are periodically varied to manage the volatility of the overall fund - the decisions on that are taken by a team (team managed) rather than one individual manager, but the fact that the decisions are taken (and will often be subjective), means the overall GS Balanced fund is technically "actively managed" (though the level of that active management is much less than you'd get (and so pay for) in a more conventional "actively managed" fund)Sorry to butt in on this thread but is the HSBC GS Balanced a passive tracker fund? The info I've seen says "actively managed", "volatility managed" but in other places "team managed" so I'm a little confused.
I'm looking for one fund to open a S&S Isa with. Thanks.
I suppose you could call the Global Strategy series "hybrid" funds - mainly passive, but with a dose of active management involved.1 -
‘mainly passive, but with a dose of active management involved’
and charging active or passive fund-like fees? Where are we on that spectrum?
In the old days when funds charging ‘active’ fees and called active kept their holdings close to the index holdings because someone responsible lacked the testicles to risk straying far from the index, folk described them as closet indexers.0 -
JohnWinder wrote: »‘mainly passive, but with a dose of active management involved’
and charging active or passive fund-like fees? Where are we on that spectrum?
In the old days when funds charging ‘active’ fees and called active kept their holdings close to the index holdings because someone responsible lacked the testicles to risk straying far from the index, folk described them as closet indexers.
Not the same. HSBC GS is open about actively managing a bunch of index funds. Makes it an active investment. Closet funds would claim to be stock pickers while in reality replicating a single index.1 -
JohnWinder wrote: »‘mainly passive, but with a dose of active management involved’
and charging active or passive fund-like fees? Where are we on that spectrum?
In the old days when funds charging ‘active’ fees and called active kept their holdings close to the index holdings because someone responsible lacked the testicles to risk straying far from the index, folk described them as closet indexers.
That's why we're having this discussion, The HSBC GS Balanced fund charges 0.18%, GS Adventurous is 0.20%.... this compares favourably to the VLS funds which charge 0.22%.
So it seems like you're getting a bit of active management for less than a true passive fund.0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards