Vanguard Life Strategy

frenchplonka wrote: »

So in for a bumpy ride however over 20+ this should one hopes recover and have a bigger upside?

Over a fixed period say now to 2037, 2040, 2050, nobody really knows what performance will be achieved. Historically, a 100% equities portfolio has performed better over long time periods than a portfolio which also includes bonds. However, most would prefer mixing in some bonds for a smoother ride without a massive detriment to performance.

If you select the Global All-Cap fund you will have all your money in equities and in excess of 94% of those equity investments in companies listed on stock exchanges outside the UK.

That is a significantly higher risk profile than the typical UK investor and if I were told someone had that as their whole portfolio, I'd expect it is either likely to be an experienced investor who has a specific reason for doing so, or or a naive investor who is doing it because he doesn't know much about investing and has bought it by accident having not taken onboard the advice he's received in the last couple of years of posting in this forum. Of those two reasons, if it were you, I would say it was the latter.

However, you say you have started to put money into the VLS80 and not into the Global All-Cap. That fund allocates more of its capital to larger companies, more 'home bias' in terms of country allocation, and has some bonds too. 80% equities is still higher-risk than the average UK investor would tolerate, but it is likely to be less volatile than the Global All-Cap.

copthis1 wrote: »

I have £30,000 left to invest in one of these Vanguard funds (Due to some unexpected bills)..... which one?

I am just 51 and want to invest for between 5 (Unlikely) and 10 years (more likely)

Which fund VLS60 or 80?

Some would say don't invest at all for 5-10 years, only invest for 10-15 years plus. If 10 years is likely - and you have narrowed it down to only those two options out of all the other ones on the planet, and definitely want one of them - the 60 should be a safer investment in terms of risk of loss.

If you do end up needing the money back in five years be aware you might have to lose a quarter or a third of it (or 40% or more if you had used the 80% version).

You haven't given us much to go on other than timescale, so it's impossible for us to tell you whether you would prefer the 60% or 80% equities product. Most people probably prefer lower risk than 80% especially for a short timescale like a decade. So, it's natural to get comments pushing you towards 60 rather than 80 when we know nothing about you. With any two choices, the fund with lower medium-to long-term volatility is usually a safer one to be steered towards.

The very lowest-risk traditional investments are not really yielding much more than retail cash deposits and top savings accounts. So, that might tempt people to go for low-medium or medium risk investments where otherwise cash and bonds could have been OK for a decade's timeframe.

Just clicking on your post history you mention your wife is using L&G multi-index 7. Any reason not to use that fund range for your own investments? If it's for a relatively short timescale such as 10 years and you don't want more than 'about medium' risk you could consider their multi-index 5.

You mention you are 51. So presumably in a decade's time if the investment has performed poorly you still have half a decade of 'working age' before state pension in which to go out and earn more money to top up your ISAs. And if you are in reasonable health you could be around for another 40 years from now, or more. So, some people would not mind taking higher levels of risk over that timescale. But as you have mentioned you will be investing only for 10 years ish (or originally, perhaps 5) rather than keeping the investment for the next two or three or four decades, it would make sense to stick with a lower risk product, and one that's relatively simple for you to understand.