Is 'Vanguard LifeStrategy' enough in your portfolio?
Comments
-
That wasn't what i was getting at but since people keep pulling me up for using incorrect terms i was very wishy washy on how i described it.Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance so what works will not always work (Japan carry trade is a good example) whatever funds you pick understand the risks you are taking.
Basically i was saying that based on what i've read, managed funds are consistently beaten by trackers over many many years. There'll be cases where the opposite is true and some active managers will have good records but the vast majority it is not the case.
So why not go with index tracking if over many many years it has given better results?
Which is different to me saying investing in property (or Japan) (for example) for a 10 year spell in 19xx (i've gone xx as it's only for example sake but if i put numbers on it someone will pull me up and say property didn't do well in that decade ........ even though this is only an example!!) did much better than anything else so why not keep doing it.0 -
My comment wasn't a specific comment about what you said, just that what we know to be correct today may not be in future, that's why I think people should try and understand the reason for their choice of investments and the risks involved.0
-
JustAnotherSaver wrote: »But for anyone who's still kept with this post, in your own personal opinion, would you be happy to have one of these funds (or similar - not necessarily Vanguard's) as the solitary investment in your portfolio?
Yes. In fact I think a solitary multi asset fund is probably a great choice for many investors, myself included.
I don't practice what I preach though (I never said i wasn't a hypocrite
). Most of my investments are in multi asset funds, though I do also hold some other funds for the areas that I think are under represented in my multi asset funds.
Ultimately I don't think it matters that much. As long as you manage your funds correctly (e.g. rebalance once a year) and keep your platform costs down you can make your portfolio as simple or as complicated as you want it to be.JustAnotherSaver wrote: »Also to save me creating a separate thread on it - at what point would you consider an IFA (if you'd consider one at all)?
I first started at 28 with £100pm. Nothing really but it was all i could afford at the time. I went with an IFA and after asking & reading on this forum i learned that any gains i make would likely be eroded by fees. Essentially it was a bad decision & i should 'have a go' myself while the pot is a small amount & only when it gets much larger should i consider an IFA.
So how big would your pot have to be to consider one?
I agree with the other posters that the amount isn't the only relevant point. For me the big point is where you're starting from and what you want your IFA to achieve for you. If someone who doesn't have that many assets suddenly inherets £200k (or more) then my first suggestion would be to use an IFA. An IFA can help with picking the right investments, but also the right tax shelters for the future.
Conversely, if someone who has gained their wealth over time, with a wisely invested pension pot of £250k, and £50k in wisely invested S&S ISAs asked if they needed an IFA, I would probably advise against it. What can an IFA do that someone who has successfully DIY'ed over the years can't do?0 -
Simple answer is yes. Better than nothing, a great place to start before you decide if you want a more complex approach or maybe you want to go with an IFA. Or maybe you decide you are happy with VLS.
I hold a large DC pot across three multi-asset funds. It suits my objectives and is working fine.
As much as I value dunstonh's posts (and I have learned a lot from them), I do find it a bit frustrating when he posts (as he has done before) that his model portfolio outperforms VLS but like all IFAs he will not put his money where his mouth is by accepting a variable charging model against a benchmark like VLS.
That's the main reason why I don't use IFAs but of course YMMV.0 -
That was something else i was thinking about but i'm weary about trying to ask too much too soon and certainly in one thread.Most of my investments are in multi asset funds, though I do also hold some other funds for the areas that I think are under represented in my multi asset funds.
But i will do anyway :rotfl:Even if it's just a reply from yourself.
I suppose there'll be no such thing as a perfect multi asset fund and that they'll all be lacking in one way or another ... so that's when an investor may bring in other funds where their multi asset fund may be lacking.
I'm curious about how that person then splits the contributions. I don't just mean percentages but beyond that. Let's say 70% multi asset fund, 30% 'other'.
Now someone investing £x000 per month may not have an issue but someone who can't afford as much, that 30% may take them under the minimum monthly amount so how they'd get around that?
Very fair pointI agree with the other posters that the amount isn't the only relevant point. For me the big point is where you're starting from and what you want your IFA to achieve for you. If someone who doesn't have that many assets suddenly inherets £200k (or more) then my first suggestion would be to use an IFA. An IFA can help with picking the right investments, but also the right tax shelters for the future.
Conversely, if someone who has gained their wealth over time, with a wisely invested pension pot of £250k, and £50k in wisely invested S&S ISAs asked if they needed an IFA, I would probably advise against it. What can an IFA do that someone who has successfully DIY'ed over the years can't do?0 -
I stuck to a multi-asset for for my pension until i got to about £100k. At that point I started moving things around a bit and finding my own fund. It simpky coincided with my transfering an old fund into a SIPP.JustAnotherSaver wrote: »I'm curious about how that person then splits the contributions. I don't just mean percentages but beyond that. Let's say 70% multi asset fund, 30% 'other'.
Now someone investing £x000 per month may not have an issue but someone who can't afford as much, that 30% may take them under the minimum monthly amount so how they'd get around that?
There are no rules with this stuff. I use passive funds from time to time but currently I am all in active ones. Lots of different opinions. My general advice to anyone asking would be to stick to a single multi-asset fund or possibly one equity and one bond fund if you want to balance yourself.0 -
JustAnotherSaver wrote: »I suppose there'll be no such thing as a perfect multi asset fund and that they'll all be lacking in one way or another ... so that's when an investor may bring in other funds where their multi asset fund may be lacking.
I'm curious about how that person then splits the contributions. I don't just mean percentages but beyond that. Let's say 70% multi asset fund, 30% 'other'.
Now someone investing £x000 per month may not have an issue but someone who can't afford as much, that 30% may take them under the minimum monthly amount so how they'd get around that?
All my monthly contributions go into a multi asset fund. I only pay into my "satellite" funds when I do my annual rebalance.
Some platforms charge per transaction so paying into multiple funds every month, assuming you even meet the minimum pay-in requirement, can get expensive.0 -
Yes, I would quite happily have a single low cost fund in my pension similar to Vanguard's LifeStrategy series.
I used an IFA to setup my SIPP. I was consolidating two previous workplace personal pensions and at the time I was completely ignorant about finance in general and all I knew about pensions was to put at least 10% of your salary into it. The total at that time was about £125000 which represented 20 years contributions minus whatever amount was lost transferring out of the Equitable Life fiasco.
I no longer use an IFA. This came about after reading an article by the Escape Artist "Do you even know what’s going on in your pension?". I started to do some research and eventually felt confident enough that sticking with a simple portfolio such as Vanguard LifeStrategy 60/40 satisified my level of investment risk and goals.
There are quite a few articles talking about the differences in growth between managed funds and trackers but for me the articles talking about "rate of saving" and costs (transaction fees, platform fees, adviser fee etc) are much more important. Which is why Vanguard LifeStrategy and similar from other providers offer a simple easily managed portfolio that will be "sufficient" to satisfy most risk and investment goals and be self managed.JustAnotherSaver wrote: »...
would you be happy to have one of these funds (or similar - not necessarily Vanguard's) as the solitary investment in your portfolio?
...
Also to save me creating a separate thread on it - at what point would you consider an IFA (if you'd consider one at all)?
I first started at 28 with £100pm. Nothing really but it was all i could afford at the time. I went with an IFA and after asking & reading on this forum i learned that any gains i make would likely be eroded by fees. Essentially it was a bad decision & i should 'have a go' myself while the pot is a small amount & only when it gets much larger should i consider an IFA.
So how big would your pot have to be to consider one?0 -
Until a few months back I would have agreed VLS was a good option for a stand alone buy-n-forget multi-asset investor. However with climate change becoming a big issue, you need to be wary of too much exposure to fossil fuel companies such as the big oil majors.
The VLS allocate 25% of their equity to the UK market which is dominated by the likes of Shell and BP and that, for me makes it a risky choice going forward. I am now more inclined towards HSBC Global Strategy which has less than 5% in UK and therefore much less exposure to oil stocks.
It's not mentioned too often but I think the climate emergency will be changing the investing landscape in a big way over the coming few years so investors need to factor this in when looking at long term investment strategy.0 -
Is there a reason why the LifeStrategy funds seem to be the 'biggie'?
Many on here rave about them. There's also a number giving their reasons for going elsewhere. Is there a website with a stat on the popularity of these to see what is the most selected (such as Vanguard's LifeStrategy, HSBC's Global Strategy, so on & so forth)?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards