Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • pip895
    • By pip895 6th Apr 18, 8:37 AM
    • 586Posts
    • 331Thanks
    pip895
    So how was that (financial) year for you?
    • #1
    • 6th Apr 18, 8:37 AM
    So how was that (financial) year for you? 6th Apr 18 at 8:37 AM
    Good Bad or Indifferent?

    For me it was pretty Indifferent at 5.4% the active part of the portfolio doing a little better than the passive part, but not by much, so pretty inconclusive.
Page 3
    • msallen
    • By msallen 8th Apr 18, 1:11 PM
    • 880 Posts
    • 989 Thanks
    msallen
    I have reported you for calling me "greedy and reckless" just because you are jealous that I did well with my investments last year.
    Originally posted by bundly
    Truly pathetic.

    I've not commented on any of your posts so far. I have just been an observer. Let me point out what I have seen from that context:
    • You pop up bragging about how much better you have done with your investments than with some that were selected by an ex with investment experience.
    • You claim that p2p is risk free.
    • You claim that a regular saver paying 5% AER is a con and actually paying only 3%.
    • (Many knowledgeable) people point out the mistakes you have made or generally tell you something you don't want to hear - 90% of them in a perfectly friendly (but honest, not sugar coated) manner (such as Dairy Queen most recently), and you start insulting them or claim they are discriminating against you because of your disability (which no one knew anything about prior to that).

    If you genuinely want advice, rather than just a nice warm glow from some people agreeing with you or congratulating you, then you need to either change your attitude promptly, or see an IFA. However be warned that if you see an IFA it will cost you money and (s)he will also still tell you some uncomfortable truths too.
    • bundly
    • By bundly 8th Apr 18, 3:58 PM
    • 967 Posts
    • 799 Thanks
    bundly
    [*]You pop up bragging about how much better you have done with your investments than with some that were selected by an ex with investment experience.
    Originally posted by msallen
    That is a LIE.

    A question was asked: "So how was that (financial) year for you?"

    Many people replied to the thread. I was merely one among many others who replied. Why shouldn't I?

    I happen to have done very well. I answered the question, and I answered it HONESTLY.

    Are you suggesting that only people who did badly, appallingly, or modestly are "allowed" to reply to that question?
    • bundly
    • By bundly 8th Apr 18, 4:09 PM
    • 967 Posts
    • 799 Thanks
    bundly
    What I don't think was clear, but now is, that you had enough in other income and cash etc to cover any household expenses without being forced to sell some of your equity funds.

    If we take the 2008 financial crisis as an example, equities dropped somewhere between 15% and 50% depending on where you were invested and it took about 3 years to recover before climbing higher. So the idea would be to survive for at least that long on other income - which it sounds like you can do.

    So my advice is to stay invested. Maybe consider if you are a bit too much in one region or another but otherwise sounds like you are doing fine.
    Originally posted by Prism
    Nice to be treated in a friendly manner, so thanks for that Prism!

    Yes, I have an ample income from ESA and letting rooms, which is about to be increased by another 3,500 lump plus 220 pm work pension as I am now 60. I live frugally: don't smoke, don't drink and don't run a car. So I don't need to touch anything that I have in my SIPP or my stocks and shares. Even if I lost 50,000 in a crash, that would only take me back to the 100,000 that I had a year ago. It would not be the end of the world. I have no dependents, no debts and my house is worth half a million. I paid off the mortgage 8 years into the 25 yrs.

    Considering that 20 yrs ago at age 40 I was jobless, sick, homeless, and 30k in debt, I think I have done all right!
    • TBC15
    • By TBC15 8th Apr 18, 7:06 PM
    • 554 Posts
    • 286 Thanks
    TBC15
    Good Bad or Indifferent?

    For me it was pretty Indifferent at 5.4% the active part of the portfolio doing a little better than the passive part, but not by much, so pretty inconclusive.
    Originally posted by pip895
    I bet you wished you had never asked.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 8th Apr 18, 8:09 PM
    • 8,243 Posts
    • 15,031 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    I'm very grateful that peeps are taking an interest in my welfare, and have read all you wrote, and am as ever grateful for advice if people can see me heading for disaster.

    I acknowledge that I was just lucky and that next year I might only make 10% or even 5%. Even if I made 0%, that 17% would tide me over and would be 8.5% overall for the two years, wouldn't it? Anything is better than having it all in silly BS savings paying 1%.
    Originally posted by bundly
    You are right that gaining 17% one year and 0% the next is a similar overall return to getting 8% twice.

    But the outcomes from the sort of investment funds that have delivered you 17% in a year are not just +17%, +10%, +5% and 0%. They also include -5%, -10%, -20%, -30%, -45%.

    So, let's say your 100 has grown to 117 after a year: a 17% rise. What happens if the returns over the next year from your haphazard selection of funds is a 40% loss? The 117 less 40% of 117, leaves you with only 70.

    So, over the two years your initial 100 would have gone down to being worth 70. So, overall you have lost 30% of what you started with. Instead of the two yearly numbers averaging out to gaining something like 8% a year, they would average out to losing something like 16% a year.

    For someone like you, who does not like risk, hopefully you can see that getting a return that averages out to *negative* 16% a year for a two year period, might be considered a worse outcome to "having it all in silly BS savings paying 1%."
    The only problem is, I really don't want to spend any time at all "Doing some more research on the funds you purchased and what sort of losses they could produce when markets are less favourable. Do some reading up on Investments generally through books and blogs."

    I know I *ought* to, but honestly the whole thing bores me, the jargon makes my eyes glass over, and the figures swirl around in my head and make my little brain ache. I apologise profusely for being like this, but I just am.
    You don't need to apologise to us for not wanting to take an interest in how you can use your money to safely make a return - it is not our money you are putting at risk, just your own. So it's only you that you need to apologise to, for that.

    Generally in order to make money grow - or maintain its value against inflation - over the long term, you need to use investments rather than savings. The two options really are learn about investments, or consult an IFA, and let that independent financial advisor guide you through the options and settle on something sensible. Otherwise your pot of money is going to take a random walk up and down each year, and may end up in disaster.

    You say you don't really need the money, and that you have come from humble beginnings, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't miss it when it's gone, and it could be quite emotionally damaging if you thought you had 150k+ of liquid assets at one point and you lost it by making poor choices.

    If you instead bought advice from an IFA, your ISA and general investment account balances would still take a somewhat random walk each year (because nobody knows where the market will go from time to time) but its path would be rather more controlled and not experience such wild swings, and your lack of knowledge or interest would not be a hindrance because you would literally be paying someone to be knowledgable and take an interest on your behalf.

    Back in the thread from November 2016 where you were considering getting professional help from an IFA, someone asked for a bit more detail about your circumstances including things like your attitude to risk. You said:
    • what your attitude to risk is hate risk
    B.
    Originally posted by bundly
    That attitude is simply not consistent with doing what you have done, in exchanging all your cash savings balances for investment balances using investment funds chosen haphazardly. If you still have that attitude to risk, in my opinion you should change the way you are looking after the money.

    You mentioned on your other thread that you had first invested in two p2p products that offered potential gains of something like 8% a year , in which you felt it was almost impossible to lose money. But then you thought that the returns from your funds with HL were doing better and would do better so you got rid of the investments in which you thought it was pretty much impossible to lose money, and put your cash into funds in which you hope to get double-digit annual returns.

    One misconception is that the 8% return from the P2P was safe return - it's not, they only offer you that much to compensate you for the risk of not achieving that return and perhaps losing your capital. As the banks are paying 1% for a risk free return it's very unlikely that someone else would offer 8x that for a return with similar low risks. But moving beyond that... if it's really paying 8% and it's really safe, then moving to something with higher risks which happened to achieve 13-17% one year, is not a sensible move if you don't have much of an appetite for risk. Even if you have plenty of spare money. Because if you genuinely already have enough money to fulfil life's objectives, why take the risks?

    One of the reasons people have shown concern in this thread is that you mentioned you had a safe 8% coming to you from the p2p and at the drop of a hat you dumped it to chase a better return from your equity funds investments. If you are going to change your investment plans on a whim, that can be quite damaging for your overall wealth.

    For example, say you have 155k in equity funds and it drops by 35% next year to 100k. "Ah well", you say to yourself, "only a couple of years ago I only had 100k so I haven't really lost overall. and I understand that shares can go down as well as up, so I will keep at it and hopefully the funds will recover". But then the next year they fall another 20% and now you only have 80k... "Uh oh", you say to yourself, "I guess I was better in cash after all, I should stick to what I understand with the building society bad rates". So you sell all the funds, lock in a loss and put the 80k back in banks and building societies which seem like a better option because they are at least paying positive rates.

    And then the stock markets go back up again after a couple of years but you are not on board because you were scared out of them. So your 155k became 80k. As you have frugal spending you are still solvent (at least until perhaps one day you need greater levels of later-life care) but some people would be devastated by losing seventy five thousand pounds in two years of holding some investments. People kill themselves over that sort of stuff.

    But losses of 40-50% over a couple of years, are quite possible if you have just selected a portfolio of funds (of the volatile sort that can grow 17% in a year) somewhat at random and don't do any proper research because when you try to research it's a dry subject and you get bored.
    The stocks I chose were (I think) all from the HL Wealth 150, which are funds that HL themselves have picked as not being
    volatile or too risky.
    That's a misconception. Yes the ones in the Wealth 150 are the ones they prefer to promote. In some cases because they are paid to do so, or have an agreement that their customers will get a management fee reduction if HL give a certain level of business to the fund manager. In other cases because they are popular funds that everyone talks about so they won't get criticised for recommending them even if they do terribly for a few years running.

    That doesn't mean they have picked them because they carried out an objective assessment and decided they were not 'too risky'. Because they have hundreds of thousands of customers and don't know how much risk any of you can personally handle. They are not personalising the list to you. So don't make the mistake that a marketing list is a list of safe funds, nor that the different sectors offered are all useful or necessary. Many/most of them are specialist funds designed to be held as part of a broad balanced portfolio with other complementary funds (which an IFA could help you construct after discussing how much volatility you could really handle).

    audaxer I can't give away all my secrets but here are two I chose myself: Legg Mason IF Japan Equity (gained 38% over the year) and Baillie Gifford Japanese Smaller Companies (16%).
    The Legg Mason fund had a particularly high return last tax year. For the 'GBP hedged' version it delivered almost 58% for the year although the normal unhedged one was lower due to the exchange rates from yen to pound moving over the year.

    You may well have bought it after seeing it a high performers list on the HL site or elsewhere but they are not currently actively promoting it. Here's a link to their old commentary written back in 2015, http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/research-and-news/fund-news--and--alerts/legg-mason-japan-equity-fund-research-update-2015-03-25 , in which they say:
    Hideo Shiozumi's views and niche approach could enable this adventurous fund to complement more traditional Japan-focused funds. However, the additional risk and volatility, coupled with inconsistent performance, means this fund is not currently being considered for inclusion on the Wealth 150 list of our favourite funds across the major sectors.
    HL will often try to influence their customers to invest towards or away from particular funds, so you shouldn't let a good or bad write-up from them influence you too much - they are salesmen after all. But before you jump for joy that you picked it and it did well, thing you could do is look at how it performed in its less-good periods in previous years, to get a feel for what investing in a super-specialist volatile fund really means.

    I know you have said that your eyes glaze over when trying to do research, so perhaps a visual tool will help. Below is the performance chart for a 4-year period from 16 Jan 2006 to 15 Jan 2010. The top line is the 'Personal Assets' investment trust, which has an objective of preserving and growing their investors' capital, in that order of priority. The middle line is the Investment Association average performance for Japan-focused funds that survived that time period. The bottom line is Legg Mason IF Japan Equity.


    As you can see, during the 'global financial crisis' or 'credit crunch' the Personal Assets Trust was relatively unscathed and four years after the start of the graph it was up about 20%. The IA Japan sector generally dropped over 40% at the worst point - along with many other funds which invest all their money into international equities - though after 4 years had recovered to only be about 20% down.

    Meanwhile your top tip Legg Mason IF Japan fund was down over 80% at one point - with 100 at the start dropping down to under 18... and after four years was only just back up to a 75% loss.

    * footnote - in case of confusion, the figures in the table below the chart are of the most recent five 12-month periods, and you can see there's no 80% loss there, and it did better than the 'rival' comparisons I used. But of course, you shouldn't buy things just because of them going up the most in the good times. You don't know whether the next four years will be like the most recent four years (good times) or the four years with that nasty blue line dropping 80% and staying there a while (bad times).
    audaxer I can't give away all my secrets
    You are posting anonymously on a forum. You are investing into funds which have hundreds of millions of other peoples money in them. You *could* reveal your secrets and it wouldn't stop you being able to make or lose money in those funds. And people might be able to help you understand more about what you are invested in. But if you don't want to, that's fine.

    Nice that Bowlhead reminded me that a year ago I had 100k. I now have 155k. Not too shabby for **** who has almost no idea what she's doing.
    Yes, I had only mentioned the 100k because in the thread I linked above in November 2016 which is a year and five months ago, you mentioned having 100k to invest - but perhaps that was in addition to a fully invested ISA or two along with your pensions which you're now counting within the 155k.

    If you had really got 13% a year on what your ex recommended and 17% on what you selected yourself, your average return would be somewhere between the two (say 15%), and you'd have turned 100k into 115k. The fact you now have 40k more than that, is because the 100k vs 155k is probably not a like-with-like comparison, if you were trying to imply by the 100 ---> 155k that you had done very well with your investing for someone who doesn't know much about what she's doing with investing.

    Perhaps the other 40k is because the 100k at the start was a very conservative assumption, or the 155k at the end includes pension or other lump sums such as inheritance, a grand or so of SIPP tax relief, and the excess of your rental income from your lodgers and your benefit income over the modest expenses of running your life.
    BOWLHEAD

    I hope you will meet me over on my new thread about what to do with another 220/m I shall start getting in the next few weeks. I don't have any use for it and am looking to invest it somewhere ....
    Originally posted by bundly
    Is it mandatory for you to get that tax free pension commencement lump sum and 220/m extra income starting from right now at age 60? Or is there an option to defer it and get a higher payout later? Such options can sometimes be quite lucrative, so investigate that first if you don't actually have a need for the money.
    Thanks very much everyone. I am really touched to find everyone concerned for my welfare. I really DON'T need my ex - I have all you lot!
    Originally posted by bundly
    You don't have all us lot if you are oversensitive to what you read on the forum and keep 'reporting' people for their views. The pool of people willing to offer their views and assistance for free will dwindle rapidly.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 08-04-2018 at 8:24 PM.
    • RG2015
    • By RG2015 8th Apr 18, 8:15 PM
    • 1,302 Posts
    • 772 Thanks
    RG2015
    Awesome response Bowlhead!
    • Thrugelmir
    • By Thrugelmir 8th Apr 18, 9:32 PM
    • 59,835 Posts
    • 53,186 Thanks
    Thrugelmir
    ................... on the other hand they may be jealous of you bundly.
    Originally posted by stephenadarglas
    When you've been an investor yourself for several decades. Then you'll have a broader appreciation of some of the responses that have been made. You cannot beat personal experience. The lows, the highs, the mistakes one makes. You'll never stop learning.
    Financial disasters happen when the last person who can remember what went wrong last time has left the building.
    • thenewcomer
    • By thenewcomer 9th Apr 18, 6:10 AM
    • 97 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    thenewcomer
    it was my first investing tax year. ive learnt a lot and realised that investment is fun. there is so much to learn i am squeezing time out here and there for it.
    • bundly
    • By bundly 9th Apr 18, 9:10 AM
    • 967 Posts
    • 799 Thanks
    bundly
    Thanks for going to all the trouble of a very long response Bowlhead, though it's weird when someone does that then gets out the knife at the end.

    I've copied and pasted it all into a Word Doc to treasure forever, but deleted the final comments.

    Is it mandatory for you to get that tax free pension commencement lump sum and 220/m extra income starting from right now at age 60? Or is there an option to defer it and get a higher payout later? Such options can sometimes be quite lucrative, so investigate that first if you don't actually have a need for the money.

    I can have zero lump sum now and 3660 a year, or any lump sum I choose and they will recalculate the monthly pension. I can defer taking anything at all for up to age 78. I doubt if I will live past 70, though, so that is what made me take the highest lump sum now and smaller monthly income because I don't need it to live on.

    Two points to make:

    1. My stocks and shares are spread across something like 17 funds which themselves are spread across a range of funds. So I am probably invested in something like 70 or 80 different funds. My ex told me this is the "right way" to do it. They aren't all likely to plummet at the same time unless there is a world recession.

    2. If I withdraw ALL of my 140k from HL now, I will be turning that 15% "paper" gain into a "real" gain, and no money will be lost when this massive crash comes along to wipe out half my capital. (I say 140k because presumably I should leave the 15k that is in the SIPP.) Then comes the question, where to put it that is cast-iron. And that is where the IFA comes in, I suppose, or is there a ready answer to where to put 140k?
    Last edited by bundly; 09-04-2018 at 9:21 AM.
    • bundly
    • By bundly 9th Apr 18, 9:16 AM
    • 967 Posts
    • 799 Thanks
    bundly
    it was my first investing tax year. ive learnt a lot and realised that investment is fun. there is so much to learn i am squeezing time out here and there for it.
    Originally posted by thenewcomer
    That's really nice to hear, newcomer! Good on yer!

    I've learned a lot, too and I was also finding it "fun" till metaphorical buckets of cold water extinguished that. Now it's starting to become just one more damned thing to worry myself sick about :-(

    The happiest "person" I know is my cat, and he owns nothing.
    • ChesterDog
    • By ChesterDog 9th Apr 18, 9:42 AM
    • 888 Posts
    • 1,666 Thanks
    ChesterDog

    The happiest "person" I know is my cat, and he owns nothing.
    Originally posted by bundly
    How true.

    Money does give much-needed security throughout life, but possessions themselves are pretty much burdens on the whole. Minimalism brings freedom.
    I am one of the Dogs of the Index.
    • RG2015
    • By RG2015 9th Apr 18, 10:06 AM
    • 1,302 Posts
    • 772 Thanks
    RG2015
    You don't have all us lot if you are oversensitive to what you read on the forum and keep 'reporting' people for their views. The pool of people willing to offer their views and assistance for free will dwindle rapidly.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Thanks for going to all the trouble of a very long response Bowlhead, though it's weird when someone does that then gets out the knife at the end.
    Originally posted by bundly
    This is not a metaphorical knife. It is actually a very kind and caring final piece of wisdom.

    Consider how you would feel if nobody at all replied to your posts.
    • stoozie1
    • By stoozie1 9th Apr 18, 10:40 AM
    • 608 Posts
    • 566 Thanks
    stoozie1
    My investments haven't done extraordinarily well, I'm entirely in VLS 100 acc. But due to the wisdom here, I'd say I've learnt more this last year financially than in the 15 before it, and I wish I had discovered you all sooner.

    Many many thanks to the regular posters here, who take time to teach us newbies.
    Save 12 k in 2018 challenge member #79
    Target 2018: 24k Jan 2018- 560 April 2670
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 9th Apr 18, 2:20 PM
    • 8,243 Posts
    • 15,031 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    I can have zero lump sum now and 3660 a year, or any lump sum I choose and they will recalculate the monthly pension. I can defer taking anything at all for up to age 78. I doubt if I will live past 70, though, so that is what made me take the highest lump sum now and smaller monthly income because I don't need it to live on.
    If you have restricted life expectancy it can make a lot of sense to go with more cash in your hand (the 13500?) and less ongoing per annum. However, the average life expectancy for a female in the UK who has already reached age 60, is close to 88 years old - i.e. 28 years from now rather than 10.

    That's an average and there are regional and demographic variations. If you were in poor health and drank or smoke more than average, you wouldn't have so long on the clock. But you did mention in your IFA thread in Nov '16 that you were in good health, and in this thread that you don't drink or smoke. Maybe the Nov 2016 thread was before your accident. Still, if you are in no worse than average physical shape for a 60-y/o lady, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see you get to 95+; maybe a 1 in 4 chance of that and 1 in 10 chance of having a birthday card from the Queen.

    But you probably know your health better than we do. The point is just, (especially when you don't know much about how to invest it when you get it), a higher monthly amount - or deferring the pension and getting more - can be a good insurance policy against living much longer than ten more years from now.

    If your health is such that seeing out 10 or more years will be a big surprise, perhaps there is scope to ask the pension fund to offer an enhanced amount because they budgeted for you to be around until your mid 80s or beyond and actually you'll be leaving much sooner...
    1. My stocks and shares are spread across something like 17 funds which themselves are spread across a range of funds. So I am probably invested in something like 70 or 80 different funds. My ex told me this is the "right way" to do it.
    If the overall average blend of assets ends up within your risk tolerance then yes diversification is a good way to go (though you certainly don't need as many as 17 funds holding other funds). However if all the 17 funds are high risk ones, you are still overall, sitting there with a risky set of Investments. The fact that you got on average 17% on your funds and 13% on his funds means they are not low or medium risk funds because the average of 17 medium risk funds would be unlikely to be be as high as 15% or more from last April to April.
    They aren't all likely to plummet at the same time unless there is a world recession.
    Probably true. So what about when there is a world recession, and they do? Are you ok with the losses you would get from a diversified set of equity funds in those circumstances? There may be one in a few years time or one starting next week. If you live long enough beyond 70, you might see more than one.
    2. If I withdraw ALL of my 140k from HL now, I will be turning that 15% "paper" gain into a "real" gain, and no money will be lost when this massive crash comes along to wipe out half my capital. (I say 140k because presumably I should leave the 15k that is in the SIPP.) Then comes the question, where to put it that is cast-iron. And that is where the IFA comes in, I suppose, or is there a ready answer to where to put 140k?
    There is no ready answer where to put 140k because investment is about opinion, attitude, goals, risk capacity and levels of knowledge and understanding that a person has.

    So the solution used would be different for everyone. But don't make the misconception that because investment can involve different opinions, maybe that means they're all just as good as each other and all valid. That there's no right or wrong and it doesn't matter what you do even if you pull fund names or of a hat. Because no, the opinions aren't all going to be equally as good for you. Some opinions and strategies are stupid ones. Some are great for some people but wouldn't work for others. An IFA will have experience of how to work with lots of different customers including people like you.

    If you sit down with two or three local IFAs you can decide who you'd prefer to work with and what the costs might be - but they will all have a similar sort of professional approach to end up at an appropriate solution, even if the solutions differ. You can certainly afford to buy advice, as you could have afforded it a year or two ago when you had 100k of capital that you didn't need immediately; and now you have 155k.

    You don't need to sell all your HL assets if you are going to take advice soon. Certainly don't empty the S&S Isa and sipp as it will be a waste of your allowances when you then get advised to top them back up again. If you do make some sales, just keep the money in cash on the HL platform until you have been advised what to buy. Your adviser will no doubt have a preferred platform that's cheaper than HL for 100-150k of fund investments.

    Thanks for going to all the trouble of a very long response Bowlhead, though it's weird when someone does that then gets out the knife at the end.
    Originally posted by bundly
    My final point was in hope that you would try to moderate your attitude a little and think twice before you shut out the well-meaning strangers from your life by exhibiting paranoia and accusing them of something of which they're not guilty, and trying to get them banned from exchanging their views on this thread. It was a well meaning comment as I wish you the best.

    Instead, you took that to be "getting a knife out" at you. You said you were going to delete that sentence from your records. Lungboy commented that it was a valuable piece of advice. Ironically you then turned on him for saying that (ie for reiterating that you shouldn't cut your nose off to spite your face, or throw the baby out with the bathwater) and said that single sentence of his was attacking or harassing you. Now his post no longer appears on the thread and neither does Dairy Queen's, whom you said you believed to be jealous of you.

    Either you reported them and a moderator removed their posts, or they removed their own post for a quiet life. But either way you can guarantee that's a couple of people who will have no further interest in helping you. Together with the others you criticized on the other short lived thread which you deleted and was reported.

    Your problem is that Lungboy was merely passing comment on the posts being made on a thread where people are trying to help you. If you continue to report such fellow users, for their well-meaning and tame comments - maybe you will weed out a joker or two. But it will be counterproductive overall, because you will cut out any hope of getting further help from them and from many more people than that who think you are not being very gracious. And you need the help you can get.
    • Lungboy
    • By Lungboy 9th Apr 18, 2:41 PM
    • 1,466 Posts
    • 1,452 Thanks
    Lungboy
    Either you reported them and a moderator removed their posts, or they removed their own post for a quiet life. But either way you can guarantee that's a couple of people who will have no further interest in helping you. Together with the others you criticized on the other short lived thread which you deleted and was reported.

    Your problem is that Lungboy was merely passing comment on the posts being made on a thread where people are trying to help you. If you continue to report such fellow users, for their well-meaning and tame comments - maybe you will weed out a joker or two. But it will be counterproductive overall, because you will cut out any hope of getting further help from them and from many more people than that who think you are not being very gracious. And you need the help you can get.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    I certainly didn't remove my own post, and you're quite right about no more help. I'm done.
    • RG2015
    • By RG2015 9th Apr 18, 2:58 PM
    • 1,302 Posts
    • 772 Thanks
    RG2015
    Instead, you took that to be "getting a knife out" at you. You said you were going to delete that sentence from your records. Lungboy commented that it was a valuable piece of advice. Ironically you then turned on him for saying that (ie for reiterating that you shouldn't cut your nose off to spite your face, or throw the baby out with the bathwater) and said that single sentence of his was attacking or harassing you. Now his post no longer appears on the thread and neither does Dairy Queen's, whom you said you believed to be jealous of you.

    Either you reported them and a moderator removed their posts, or they removed their own post for a quiet life. But either way you can guarantee that's a couple of people who will have no further interest in helping you. Together with the others you criticized on the other short lived thread which you deleted and was reported.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    My post supporting DairyQueen has also been deleted. I found a cached copy on a Google search with what I said.

    "You may believe that some posters have been a bit harsh with their comments but not Dairy Queen.

    This is how you respond to someone who has genuine concerns?

    I applaud DairyQueen for this post and believe they deserve praise and an apology."


    I guess it was deleted because it included part of DairyQueen's post as a quote.
    • TheShape
    • By TheShape 9th Apr 18, 3:32 PM
    • 1,399 Posts
    • 1,270 Thanks
    TheShape
    My investments haven't done extraordinarily well, I'm entirely in VLS 100 acc. But due to the wisdom here, I'd say I've learnt more this last year financially than in the 15 before it, and I wish I had discovered you all sooner.

    Many many thanks to the regular posters here, who take time to teach us newbies.
    Originally posted by stoozie1
    Performance would have looked a lot better 3 months ago given VLS 100 has fallen approx 7% since early January.

    I've also learned a lot. 18 mths ago I wouldn't have known what VLS 100 was or how to find out how it had performed.
    • bundly
    • By bundly 9th Apr 18, 4:10 PM
    • 967 Posts
    • 799 Thanks
    bundly
    My investments haven't done extraordinarily well, I'm entirely in VLS 100 acc. But due to the wisdom here, I'd say I've learnt more this last year financially than in the 15 before it, and I wish I had discovered you all sooner.

    Many many thanks to the regular posters here, who take time to teach us newbies.
    Originally posted by stoozie1
    I've never heard of the "VLS 100 acc" and so this is another benefit to this board: hearing of new things!

    Edited to add: I googled it and it took me straight to HL, where I see it's a find similar to the ones I have. I suppose the very low interest rate is made up for by it being a "cast iron" fund?
    Last edited by bundly; 09-04-2018 at 4:16 PM.
    • Prism
    • By Prism 9th Apr 18, 5:52 PM
    • 475 Posts
    • 390 Thanks
    Prism
    I have a question about a fund within my HL account. Baillie Gifford Japanese Smaller Companies Class B - Accumulation (GBP). I invested 26,368 and it's now worth 34,648, an increase of 8,280. The percentage increase was 31.40%; and Legg Mason IF Japan Equity Class X - Accumulation (GBP) bought at 5,658 now worth 7,854 (38.82%). Does the high percentages mean I should sell these shares now and "realise" that 10k increase, because that fund will probably start to drop in % now, after having had a good year?
    Originally posted by bundly
    Its almost impossible to say. I bought Legg Mason IF Japan in January 2017 and a bit more in April 2017. In this time my investment is up 59%. Now on this basis you could argue that it can't keep going surely? The manager thinks it can as he has not from what I can tell sold any of the underlying holdings. This is the risk we take.

    One other example with Legg Mason Japan. In calendar year 2015 it made 50.5%. Had you sold out then assuming future poor performance you would have missed out on 29.2% in 2016 and 36.1% in 2017. However had you sold out after the huge increase of 65% in 2013 you would have been happy to avoid the -0.6% in 2014.

    One way of looking at things it to have some set rules like 'no more than 15% Japan in my whole portfolio' (thats an example, I'm not say 15% Japan is a good number, its just my number). Then if those funds do really well and upset this balance then you could sell (rebalance) a little and buy something else. However thats always the problem - what else to buy instead. You might well then find that those Japan funds go up even more and you wouldn't be blamed for thinking you had made a mistake. Or Japan could perform poorly and you would be happy you had sold a little.

    Impossible to know ahead of time - all you can do is have good balance, some internal rules and stick to them.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 9th Apr 18, 6:18 PM
    • 8,243 Posts
    • 15,031 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    However, when a poster does what Lungboy did, he deserves to be reported. He came onto the thread and made a short post purely to say something nasty to a woman who is a stranger to him and has never done him any harm. There was no other content to his post.
    Originally posted by bundly
    I don't want to waste your time or mine on this as bickering gets us nowhere. However, I would like to give you my opinion on that. He didn't "just come onto the thread and make a short post purely to say something nasty to a woman who is a stranger".

    He was already participating in the thread with two other posts - one to comment that my earlier posting was not "mean spirited" as it had been well intentioned; and a second to make the observation that the two Japan funds you mentioned had particularly high "FE Risk Scores" and only one of them was on the HL marketing list that you'd regarded as having good risk/volatility characteristics. So, he didn't pop up out of nowhere.

    I had ended my long post which you were copying for posterity, with a reply to your comment that you didn't need your ex because you had all us lot. I observed you wouldn't keep all us lot onside if you were going to keep reporting people for their views, as people would be less willing to help; you may alienate the otherwise-concerned strangers. You said you would save my message but disregard that bit because you didn't like it. Lungboy made a one sentence post to say that if you deleted that bit, you were perhaps deleting the most important part of the message. In other words: don't push people away, because the kindness of strangers can enhance your life.

    To that honest and useful comment, you said "stop harassing me ; stop attacking me" and then you reported it.
    Clearly the Moderator also felt that the post contributed nothing to the thread other than unpleasantness
    The moderators want to keep the peace, and be seen to crusade against cyber bullying, so when they are alerted to a post where a forum user is telling another to stop harassing and attacking them, they will not sit back and read several pages of thread for context to determine whether you were actually getting attacked. The easy option on a forum this size is to take things at face value. The end result was that you achieved your aim of having the post and its advice, removed. You can't infer from that that anyone believed you were being harassed and attacked by someone who simply commented "don't discard the best advice offered to you".

    Anyway. Moving on.

    I have a question about a fund within my HL account. Baillie Gifford Japanese Smaller Companies Class B - Accumulation (GBP). I invested 26,368 and it's now worth 34,648, an increase of 8,280. The percentage increase was 31.40%; and Legg Mason IF Japan Equity Class X - Accumulation (GBP) bought at 5,658 now worth 7,854 (38.82%). Does the high percentages mean I should sell these shares now and "realise" that 10k increase, because that fund will probably start to drop in % now, after having had a good year?
    A traditional approach would be to build a balanced portfolio of funds covering a wide variety of sectors. At the start you might have x% in fund 1 and y% in fund 2 and z% in fund 3 and a% in fund 4 and b% in fund 5, and so on, and together the whole lot adds up to your whole portfolio.

    From time to time, some will go up, others will go down, or some will go up and others will go even more up.

    What might happen, as in this example, is that you start off with a "certain proportion" of your portfolio, say x%, allocated to some funds and then they grow faster than other things, so when you look at your portfolio later they are more more than x% of the revised portfolio value. But you only wanted x% in these funds, to allow room in your portfolio for all the other funds which are not Japanese high risk equity. That doesn't mean you need to completely sell out of them, but you should trim back the amount invested to the proportion of your portfolio that it was before (if you still believe that is a sensible number) -which is how much of the portfolio you want to risk in these funds at a point in time.

    For example if these two funds were together once worth 20% of your portfolio but now they are 25%, you probably need to cut them back because you don't want a quarter of your money in this one basket. So sell part of them and put the resulting money into something else so that you become, once again, no more than 20% allocated to these funds.

    The above is a generalisation. Frankly, having over 40k of a 160k portfolio in two specialist high risk Japan funds is a bit of a crazy high risk, given Japan is less than 10% of the world economy by market size and these two funds focus on a very small part of that economy at a time. As shown in the graph in the previous post, the Legg Mason fund could lose a hugely significant fraction of its value in any one year, and for you also to have a big tilt to the BG fund at the same time (specialising in small Japanese companies) is sort of asking for trouble really.

    If I were you, and had the attitude "I hate risk", which I'd previously thought, I might sell out entirely. If I'd softened the attitude a bit and didn't mind accepting *some* risk - I would still sell those two funds down to far less than 20k or 30k or 40k- no more than about 5% of your investment between them (10k or less, on a 165k overall portfolio value) so that you have space for funds that hold company shares in all the other countries of the world too, as well as buying funds that don't invest in company shares and instead hold things like bonds, commercial property etc.

    I've never heard of the "VLS 100 acc" and so this is another benefit to this board: hearing of new things!

    Edited to add: I googled it and it took me straight to HL, where I see it's a find similar to the ones I have. I suppose the very low interest rate is made up for by it being a "cast iron" fund?
    Originally posted by bundly
    It doesn't pay any interest as it is not a cash account and doesn't loan money to companies or governments so it doesn't earn any interest from its investments.

    Instead of interest it pays a relatively low level of dividend income. Dividend income represents the profit shares it periodically receives in cash from 5000 companies around the world in which it invests. Actually in this very specific version of the fund, it doesn't physically pay this cash out to you as an investor, because the version you are talking about is an "Acc" (accumulation) version, instead of an "Inc" version paying out the income. So, instead it collects (accumulates) the dividends internally and reinvests them for you, so the shares of the fund become more valuable.

    The nature of the fund (accumulating rather than paying an income) is same as your Legg Mason IF Japan, but it is not a very similar fund really. Legg Mason has a very active fund manager making big judgements over the course of the year to manage a highly concentrated set of shares in Japan. Vanguard Lifestrategy by contrast has 25% of its money invested into the UK stock markets, allocated mostly to the biggest companies by following the index, and the remaining 75% allocated to indexes of companies in other world regions; US, Japan, Europe, other bits of Asia and emerging markets etc. It follows the indexes and doesn't try to outsmart the other people in the market from week to week by making big judgements. It's judgement is all up front when it decides how much each country should get. Not picking individual companies from week to week.

    As the money is spread far and wide into different stock market indexes, you wouldn't expect it to drop more than 40-50% in a world recession or stock market collapse, while still giving you lots of long term upside potential. 40-50% is a huge amount for some people, who would find it way too risky to be their whole portfolio. However, the scale of your potential losses with that sort of thing are much lighter than LeggMason's 80% in a bad year.

    Losing 40 of your 100 at Vanguard's fund still leaves you with 60, which is three times as much money that you didn't lose, compared to as if you had lost 80 of your 100 with LeggMason and only had 20 left over.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 09-04-2018 at 6:26 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

138Posts Today

1,153Users online

Martin's Twitter