chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 20, 2018 16:13:59 GMT 7
Switching individual funds incurs a buying cost of 0.80%, in addition to the platform and non-advised surcharge, 0.50% and 0.44% per annum respectively. The 0.8% figure looks odd to me. Transact charges 0.05% on asset purchases, and nothing on sales. A 0.5% platform charge is steep, and the non-advised surcharge unfortunate and avoidable. The obvious solution would be to switch to a different platform. Fletch is a great fan of Hargreaves Lansdown. They charge 0.45% for a portfolio of your size. I prefer something cheaper and use Interactive Investors for my onshore holdings. They charges a flat GBP 90/year. The service isn't great, though. Other options reviewed at www.boringmoney.co.uk/best-buys/online-investments/Transact does not charge for transfer out of securities, and most platforms don't charge for transfer in. (I've assumed you're UK resident. Offshore I use Internaxx which charges a maximum of €190/year - significantly less if you trade at least once each quarter.) I'm not UK resident and as a result, Transact is the only game in town that will allow me to trade, this by virtue of my legacy pension with them, Hargreaves won't let me open an account and neither will anyone else. I've taken the matter up with the FCA who basically say, tough sh*t. The 0.8% is for switch funds, there's no charge to sell a fund but to reinvest in an alternate one attracts that charge. Their standard charge is 0.5% but if you don't have an IFA they charge you the equivalent of the monthly IFA fee every month, plus, an IFA would get a commission every time a client changed funds so the pocket that fee (0.8%) as well - new funds introduced to the platform attract a 3% charge up front!
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 20, 2018 16:22:36 GMT 7
There's a lot of controversy surrounding the effectiveness of managed versus trackers so the correct answer depends on your personal view, some say it's 50/50, others say trackers win over 80% of the time, others say that if you pick your managed fund with care you'll outperform the tracker 90% of the time, who knows what the real answer is. If you look at the pro-tracker argument it starts by comparing the performance of trackers with a sector average of fund managers. And let's admit it, there are a lot of mediocre fund managers out there, and high fund charges are a drag on performance. However, to me this is intellectually dishonest and hides the fact that there are some very capable fund managers out there who can outperform a benchmark for years and years (albeit with an occasional slip). Here are charts of a couple of investment trusts I've held for over a decade (and otherwise picked at random from my holdings). The first is Max Ward's IIT compared with Vanguard FTSE U.K. All Share Index A Acc GBP. The second is Francesco Conte's JESC compared with DB X-Trackers MSCI Europe Small Cap Index UCITS ETF (DR) 1C GBP. It does take a little bit of research to identify the better fund managers, but if you only need to do so once every decade or two it's hardly onerous. I'm not so lazy that I'm prepared to accept tracker like performance where outperformance is possible. (It is not possible in my opinion in some markets, most notably bonds, and possibly US large cap equities. My index-linked gilts and TIPS holdings are both ETFs.) For someone who's too lazy to do the research, then I'd suggest putting everything on red at Monte Carlo into Vanguard LifeStrategy 80% Equity Fund and be done with it. (It is a very good product in many ways.) Just for interest, here's how it's performed (C) against the two investment trusts mentioned above: And one final point: trackers are required to hold companies good and very obviously bad and about to crash and burn. Active fund managers aren't. Just to put what you've written into context, you've been involved with investment funds all your career. Similarly, I can't understand why my wife is so poor at financial modelling and can't do a much better job of cost-benefit analysis, I mean, they're such simple things!
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 20, 2018 16:39:43 GMT 7
I'm not UK resident and as a result, Transact is the only game in town that will allow me to trade, this by virtue of my legacy pension with them, Hargreaves won't let me open an account and neither will anyone else. I've taken the matter up with the FCA who basically say, tough sh*t. The 0.8% is for switch funds, there's no charge to sell a fund but to reinvest in an alternate one attracts that charge. Their standard charge is 0.5% but if you don't have an IFA they charge you the equivalent of the monthly IFA fee every month, plus, an IFA would get a commission every time a client changed funds so the pocket that fee (0.8%) as well - new funds introduced to the platform attract a 3% charge up front You're clearly stuffed over your pension. I presume you're not resident in Europe, so can't move to a QROPS. However, if you've got general investment account investments with Transact, you could move them offshore. And if you have a UK address, it's also possible to open a brokerage account in the UK by lying about your residency. I don't believe they ever check. I do think you may be mistaken about Transact charges. This is their official list of charges: www.transact-online.co.uk/TransactDocuments?mode=byAlias&key=TransactCommissionsandChargesScheduleIt makes no reference to a charge to switch funds. IFAs no longer get commission when you purchase funds. That changed a few years ago. No idea what the "3% charge up front" relates to. (Admittedly, the document doesn't mention the charges for those without a financial adviser, so you may be right. I do know I was clobbered on one Transact account when my IFA dumped me. In fact, I still am being clobbered because the two holdings remaining are not transferable having been the victim of massive fraud.)
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 20, 2018 17:17:15 GMT 7
I'm not UK resident and as a result, Transact is the only game in town that will allow me to trade, this by virtue of my legacy pension with them, Hargreaves won't let me open an account and neither will anyone else. I've taken the matter up with the FCA who basically say, tough sh*t. The 0.8% is for switch funds, there's no charge to sell a fund but to reinvest in an alternate one attracts that charge. Their standard charge is 0.5% but if you don't have an IFA they charge you the equivalent of the monthly IFA fee every month, plus, an IFA would get a commission every time a client changed funds so the pocket that fee (0.8%) as well - new funds introduced to the platform attract a 3% charge up front You're clearly stuffed over your pension. I presume you're not resident in Europe, so can't move to a QROPS. However, if you've got general investment account investments with Transact, you could move them offshore. And if you have a UK address, it's also possible to open a brokerage account in the UK by lying about your residency. I don't believe they ever check. I do think you may be mistaken about Transact charges. This is their official list of charges: www.transact-online.co.uk/TransactDocuments?mode=byAlias&key=TransactCommissionsandChargesScheduleIt makes no reference to a charge to switch funds. IFAs no longer get commission when you purchase funds. That changed a few years ago. No idea what the "3% charge up front" relates to. (Admittedly, the document doesn't mention the charges for those without a financial adviser, so you may be right. I do know I was clobbered on one Transact account when my IFA dumped me. In fact, I still am being clobbered because the two holdings remaining are not transferable having been the victim of massive fraud.) Per Transacts letter to me, as confirmed by their subsequent charges: "If we are not informed of your appointment of a new adviser within 90 days of this letter, the rate of our Buy Commission and our Annual Commission will increase. As specified in our Terms and Conditions, the following rates will apply in addition to our standard rates; which can be found in the Commissions and Charges Schedule": Buy Commission New Cash - 3% (avoided since the funds were put onto their platform within 90 days) Buy Commission Switch Cash - 0.80% (this is the previous payment to the IFA for switching funds) Anual Commission Cash - 0.30% Anual Commission Investments - 0.50 I could move my General Investment portfolio funds offshore but it suits me for the moment to leave them where they are, this may change in the future.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 22, 2018 22:20:34 GMT 7
Are you happy with your portfolio? if the answer is yes, then forget it. Sounds like one of those jobsworth box ticker type one size fits all reports. TN, is just one persons opinion, look at the contributors to this thread, you cant take a one size fits all template and expect us all to be happy. I will be honest, I have no clue what a risk score, or aggressive means, but have been through the same BS with stockbroker, fill in this jobsworths form, results come back, aggressive. I dont hold gold, crypto currencies or effin magic beans. Explained to stockbroker, you dont know shit about my portfolio, you only know about what I have invested with you. But while we are at it, please explain why Alliance Trust doesnt send me this BS, NSI doesnt send me this BS, my Thai doesnt send me this BS, in short , you dont have a clue what my overall portfolio is and what its worth. I also asked him if there was an UNSUBSCRIBE box I can tick, I dont need a effin printout of my investment, I dont need 3 monthly updates blah blah. There would appear to be a whole substrata of financial BS mushoroming these days, no wonder charges are rising to comply with TIN OECD BS, smartsave crap, pls provide at your own expense your details to prove to us you are actually who you claim to be. Phoned the stockbroker the other week, asked him, when will this BS stop, he apologised and told me to ignore it, another BS letter shotgunned to all account holders. I don't care about the so called jobsworth stuff, I'm far more interested in understanding the different dimensions of managing a portfolio from a profitability and risk standpoint, not necessarily in that order. You have the luxury of a broker between you and your actions, he no doubt will advise if you feel inclined to do something unconventional, I don't have that luxury hence my need to understand as much as I can on the subject - you also have considerably more experience in the area of investing than I do hence I'm starting from a position much further behind than you. I am used to working on the basis of risk assessments and of assessing risk, that has been a mainstay of my work for years and I'm a big believer in listening to the messages the risk process delivers. The disadvantage I have at this stage is that I don't yet fully understand all of the investment risk languages so I'm not able to completely translate all the risk messages I'm receiving. There are three levels, cautious, balanced and aggressive, ask me which level I want to be at and I will say balanced - it, therefore, comes as a surprise when I find out I'm higher than aggressive. But AyG has put that into perspective by confirming that it's based on investment type and geographic spread, both of which are intentional and desirable - another leaning block ticked and understood. Risk Levels: I really don't want to put myself in a high-risk box, I'm pushing 70, why would I do that. So understanding the basis for an FE risk score is essential and once again AyG has put that into perspective, it's a historic view of volatility which may be a useful indicator going forward and there again it may not be useful but in the absence of any other tools, it's going to get utilised. A Risk Score: of 100, equals the risk associated with the FTSE, what is that, the average risk of the FTSE one presumes - unless that is put into some kind of context it's got the potential to be a bit like saying a Model 251 nuclear bomb is an average nuclear weapon! Back on jobsworth stuff for a moment. I got my first copy of the required FCA quarterly report last week and it was helpful, it told me a series of things I hadn't previously understood so my advice would be for everyone to read theirs. It told me about charging in detail, some of which I need to dig into further to understand properly, it also put growth versus charging into perspective, useful I think. Again, this is all about where a person is on the learning curve and I'm still quite a ways down hence I'm going to utilise everything I can understand until I find I can discard it as a tool. It's not really enough for me to ask, am I happy with the portfolio and if so, forget it. If this was a garden shed I'd just built I might be able to take that approach but it isn't, its something far more complex and involved and I'm not quite there yet with enough aspects of it to feel comfortable. From my experience, there doesnt appear to be an "industry standard", I am talking UK now. There appears to be an "inhouse" bunch of boxtickers and jobsworths, whether you and I like it or not it is a moot point. I ws asked by my stockboker to provide proof of who I was, went to Brit House in Bkk and got a "certificate of residence" cost me 50 quid, cost has been reimbursed. HSBC, would NOT accpet a certificat of residence and wanted my passport notarised, that has cost them 125 quid. My best advice, would to use as a benchmark, a company source you can trust and understand, take it from there. Three levels, thank your lucky stars, I have seen 4,5 or 6 levels depending on the source. Each source should be taken with a pinch of salt. I had the same crap from an inhouse stockbroker report, telling me they dont advise holding more than 10% of my portfolio in one stock. I wrote back and told them I didnt, pls explain, they referred to my stockbroker account. I replied, this isnt the only account I hold. NS&I have never advised against holding my money with them Alliance Trust has never advised holding money with them. As has been mentioned already, we are talking about an industry that cant even decide what Emerging Markets mean. As has been mentioned before, there is too much information out there, and there are too many sharks after your money, find a source you can understand and stick with it.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 22, 2018 22:25:47 GMT 7
I'm not UK resident and as a result, Transact is the only game in town that will allow me to trade, this by virtue of my legacy pension with them, Hargreaves won't let me open an account and neither will anyone else. I've taken the matter up with the FCA who basically say, tough sh*t. The 0.8% is for switch funds, there's no charge to sell a fund but to reinvest in an alternate one attracts that charge. Their standard charge is 0.5% but if you don't have an IFA they charge you the equivalent of the monthly IFA fee every month, plus, an IFA would get a commission every time a client changed funds so the pocket that fee (0.8%) as well - new funds introduced to the platform attract a 3% charge up front You're clearly stuffed over your pension. I presume you're not resident in Europe, so can't move to a QROPS. However, if you've got general investment account investments with Transact, you could move them offshore. And if you have a UK address, it's also possible to open a brokerage account in the UK by lying about your residency. I don't believe they ever check. I do think you may be mistaken about Transact charges. This is their official list of charges: www.transact-online.co.uk/TransactDocuments?mode=byAlias&key=TransactCommissionsandChargesScheduleIt makes no reference to a charge to switch funds. IFAs no longer get commission when you purchase funds. That changed a few years ago. No idea what the "3% charge up front" relates to. (Admittedly, the document doesn't mention the charges for those without a financial adviser, so you may be right. I do know I was clobbered on one Transact account when my IFA dumped me. In fact, I still am being clobbered because the two holdings remaining are not transferable having been the victim of massive fraud.) CM mentioned before about a "drawdown pension", to me, that means QROPS. I apologise if I am wrong.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 23, 2018 3:18:43 GMT 7
You're clearly stuffed over your pension. I presume you're not resident in Europe, so can't move to a QROPS. However, if you've got general investment account investments with Transact, you could move them offshore. And if you have a UK address, it's also possible to open a brokerage account in the UK by lying about your residency. I don't believe they ever check. I do think you may be mistaken about Transact charges. This is their official list of charges: www.transact-online.co.uk/TransactDocuments?mode=byAlias&key=TransactCommissionsandChargesScheduleIt makes no reference to a charge to switch funds. IFAs no longer get commission when you purchase funds. That changed a few years ago. No idea what the "3% charge up front" relates to. (Admittedly, the document doesn't mention the charges for those without a financial adviser, so you may be right. I do know I was clobbered on one Transact account when my IFA dumped me. In fact, I still am being clobbered because the two holdings remaining are not transferable having been the victim of massive fraud.) CM mentioned before about a "drawdown pension", to me, that means QROPS. I apologise if I am wrong. No it's not QROPS, it looks like an onshore SIPP but only because I don't have an IFA, QROPS would have to be offshore. If I actually had an IFA it would look like a normal onshore drawdown pension which means I can take payments from it whilst reinvesting the remainder, the only difference now is that I do the reinvesting part myself. On a second and unrelated issue: there's an extremely interesting article on the front page of the Telegraph today, a piece from the ex-head of Bank of International Settlements (BIS) which talks about the state of financial markets today as compared to what they looked like in 2008, it makes terrifying reading which every investor should read. www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/22/world-finance-now-dangerous-2008-warns-central-bank-guru/
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 23, 2018 14:24:27 GMT 7
I'm finally coming round to the idea of dumping 90% of my bonds, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of the 65% of my portfolio that is equities but bonds at this time just seem so problematic and high risk....I know I know AyG, you did indeed tell me it was so.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 23, 2018 16:50:29 GMT 7
I'm finally coming round to the idea of dumping 90% of my bonds, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of the 65% of my portfolio that is equities but bonds at this time just seem so problematic and high risk....I know I know AyG, you did indeed tell me it was so. Chiangmai, just a couple of comments: (1) I am becoming a bit concerned that you are making far too many changes to your portfolio. What you need to do is decide on an asset allocation policy and stick to it. I appreciate that you're learning quickly, but sometimes it's better to do nothing. Fiddling with your portfolio is fun, but it costs money and doesn't always improve performance. (2) Something I've banged on about before, but I'm not sure you "get" yet is that there's a difference between inflation linked bonds and regular bonds. Regular bonds are (in my humble opinion) largely a wasted opportunity. Inflation linked bonds, however, provide very real protection against the ravages of inflation. From your previous postings I believe you have a a substantial holding in inflation linked bonds. Don't be in too much of a hurry to ditch that. My circumstances are somewhat different from you, but I'll let you know what I currently hold in bonds (even though I'm generally anti-bond): Inflation Linked- Inflation linked gilts (GILI) 2.2% - TIPS (TIPG) 2.1% Conventional- Emerging Markets Bonds (SEMB) 2.4% (Here going for higher yield, currency diversification, with close-to-equity-like growth characteristics.) - Mostly UK bonds (HDIV) 2.1% (Enjoying a decent income, and punting on the managers' ability.) There are further, indirect bond holdings via PNL, RICA, Edentree Higher Income. Almost all of the bond holdings are inflation linked. In total I'm probably around the 15%-20% mark for bonds. Most defensive investors would probably say that's too little. In short: - Probably not a bad idea to ditch conventional bonds - Hang on to the index linked bonds unless they're a very large proportion (>10%-20% of your portfolio). They provide a very real protection against inflation.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 23, 2018 17:16:11 GMT 7
Yes, I agree I am probably over tweaking at this stage and I need to do better, the problem is that I'm still not convinced my bond holdings are anywhere near optimal.
I'm holding the following, spread across two separate portfolios:
iShares Index Linked Gilts 7% Royal London Sterling Extra Yield 8% and 6% GAM Star Credit 6% Schroder Extra Yield 5% 24 Dynamic Bond Class I 6%
The above represents about 25% of each of the two portfolio's.
Royal London Sterling Extra Yield was doing fine at the outset but with 50% of its holdings greater than 10 years and an effective maturity of 6.5 years, plus less than investment grade holdings, it seems under threat if the bond market continues its decline.
24 Dynamic holds 62% <5 so seems low risk.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 23, 2018 21:18:12 GMT 7
CM mentioned before about a "drawdown pension", to me, that means QROPS. I apologise if I am wrong. No it's not QROPS, it looks like an onshore SIPP but only because I don't have an IFA, QROPS would have to be offshore. If I actually had an IFA it would look like a normal onshore drawdown pension which means I can take payments from it whilst reinvesting the remainder, the only difference now is that I do the reinvesting part myself. On a second and unrelated issue: there's an extremely interesting article on the front page of the Telegraph today, a piece from the ex-head of Bank of International Settlements (BIS) which talks about the state of financial markets today as compared to what they looked like in 2008, it makes terrifying reading which every investor should read. www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/22/world-finance-now-dangerous-2008-warns-central-bank-guru/^^^ more gloomy news, uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/fears-over-280-000-pensions-063400437.htmlFinancial markets, they are the only game in town right now, QE, too big to fail, zombie banks, FIAT currencies, banana republics eg Greece. I wonder how many would pass a "fit for purpose" stress test Thankfully, for myself personally, I have youth on my side, not yet a pensioner, I regard my pensions as nothing more than a bonus, more for my wifes benefit than mine. As one who has lived through, stock market crashes, housing market and currency crashes, its nothing new, its not a straight linear line upwards, there will be peaks and troughs along the way. All I can do is insulate myself from any coming crash, if my portfolio lost 25% tommorow, yes I waould be p**sed off, but at the end of the day, its just numbers on a piece of paper. 10 years ago I had 100 quid, today I have 200 quid, if the market drops 25% I will still have 150 quid, eg a 50% gain over 10 years. Is the glass half full or half empty?
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 24, 2018 6:27:21 GMT 7
No it's not QROPS, it looks like an onshore SIPP but only because I don't have an IFA, QROPS would have to be offshore. If I actually had an IFA it would look like a normal onshore drawdown pension which means I can take payments from it whilst reinvesting the remainder, the only difference now is that I do the reinvesting part myself. On a second and unrelated issue: there's an extremely interesting article on the front page of the Telegraph today, a piece from the ex-head of Bank of International Settlements (BIS) which talks about the state of financial markets today as compared to what they looked like in 2008, it makes terrifying reading which every investor should read. www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/22/world-finance-now-dangerous-2008-warns-central-bank-guru/^^^ more gloomy news, uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/fears-over-280-000-pensions-063400437.htmlFinancial markets, they are the only game in town right now, QE, too big to fail, zombie banks, FIAT currencies, banana republics eg Greece. I wonder how many would pass a "fit for purpose" stress test Thankfully, for myself personally, I have youth on my side, not yet a pensioner, I regard my pensions as nothing more than a bonus, more for my wifes benefit than mine. As one who has lived through, stock market crashes, housing market and currency crashes, its nothing new, its not a straight linear line upwards, there will be peaks and troughs along the way. All I can do is insulate myself from any coming crash, if my portfolio lost 25% tommorow, yes I waould be p**sed off, but at the end of the day, its just numbers on a piece of paper. 10 years ago I had 100 quid, today I have 200 quid, if the market drops 25% I will still have 150 quid, eg a 50% gain over 10 years. Is the glass half full or half empty? I like to read what's being said at Davos, it's the one time each year when you can get a lot of clues about the direction for the coming year and listen to what some extremely intelligent and influential people are thinking, by its very nature, the news is rarely good news! Although for example, the Chinese Financial Regulator said yesterday that in the next financial crisis, he would guarantee that no major financial institution would be allowed to fail, that's very good news since Western analysts continually quote a Chinese banking failure as a cause for the next financial crisis. But a central theme that's being reported by almost every speaker on economics is concern at the current state of global financial markets. Almost everyone agrees markets are overstretched and are long overdue a serious correction or worse and virtually everyone is very unclear about the impact of the Fed. raising rates, those that do have theories are all calling a serious downside. Is that a case of glass half empty or full? Despite the news itself being bad, I think it's half full because it's beginning to paint a very probable picture of what's going to happen in the near future, that way people can react and do something beforehand. Case in point the bond market, there's enough evidence now to confirm that bonds will almost certainly take a hit soon so investors holding long duration low credit quality bonds should react, people are beginning to shout it from the rooftops. That's only bad news if people don't listen or don't react. Admittedly, if I was 35 or so I would be paying far less attention to these things, I'd be comfortable in the knowledge that no matter what happens, I could recover. But as you get older priorities change and you take a different view of these things, personally, I'm going to live for another twenty-five years or more, the trouble with that is, my budget expires in eighteen years time and then how will I finance my trips to Soi Cowboy and pay for my Chang.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 24, 2018 8:20:50 GMT 7
I'm finally coming round to the idea of dumping 90% of my bonds, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of the 65% of my portfolio that is equities but bonds at this time just seem so problematic and high risk....I know I know AyG, you did indeed tell me it was so. Chiangmai, just a couple of comments: (1) I am becoming a bit concerned that you are making far too many changes to your portfolio. What you need to do is decide on an asset allocation policy and stick to it. I appreciate that you're learning quickly, but sometimes it's better to do nothing. Fiddling with your portfolio is fun, but it costs money and doesn't always improve performance. (2) Something I've banged on about before, but I'm not sure you "get" yet is that there's a difference between inflation linked bonds and regular bonds. Regular bonds are (in my humble opinion) largely a wasted opportunity. Inflation linked bonds, however, provide very real protection against the ravages of inflation. From your previous postings I believe you have a a substantial holding in inflation linked bonds. Don't be in too much of a hurry to ditch that. My circumstances are somewhat different from you, but I'll let you know what I currently hold in bonds (even though I'm generally anti-bond): Inflation Linked- Inflation linked gilts (GILI) 2.2% - TIPS (TIPG) 2.1% Conventional- Emerging Markets Bonds (SEMB) 2.4% (Here going for higher yield, currency diversification, with close-to-equity-like growth characteristics.) - Mostly UK bonds (HDIV) 2.1% (Enjoying a decent income, and punting on the managers' ability.) There are further, indirect bond holdings via PNL, RICA, Edentree Higher Income. Almost all of the bond holdings are inflation linked. In total I'm probably around the 15%-20% mark for bonds. Most defensive investors would probably say that's too little. In short: - Probably not a bad idea to ditch conventional bonds - Hang on to the index linked bonds unless they're a very large proportion (>10%-20% of your portfolio). They provide a very real protection against inflation. Just to add: Honestly, I do appreciate and understand the difference between fixed rate and inflation-linked bonds, if I didn't I would say so, I continue to preserve my IL Gilts without question as a result. And I haven't changed my asset allocation, my allocation to equities remains (broadly) the same as at the outset. Where I have reduced my bond holdings I am holding cash instead, until such time as I find an alternative I'm comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 24, 2018 21:00:16 GMT 7
^^^ Davos, ![LOL](//storage.proboards.com/6207754/images/7WqwXnsEcase2oKDoa3y.png) , nothing more than atalking shop, in truth they dont have a clue. Its easy to knock The Don, but at least he gets it, the time for kicking the can down the road must come to a stop sometime. There used to be a time when if America sneezed the rest of the world caught a cold, those days are gone. Middle Earth (China) ploughs its own furrow, and occasionaly Australia catches a cold. Europe doesnt seem to have a clue. UK Brexit, etc , well no one knows what will happen. I remember well the Tom Yam Gung crisis of 1998, ten years later Thailand and Asai well on the way to recovery. GFC of 2008, and the west is nowhere near recovery, QE, too big to fail, etc etc, kick the can down the road, and pray that China sparks a revival. Meanwhile the tax avoiders, you already know the names, come to your country set up shop and avoid tax, at least The Don understands this. WTO, about as useless as the UN, a gravy train.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,319
Likes: 5,346
|
Post by chiangmai on Feb 1, 2018 6:39:04 GMT 7
Yet another (AyG) coin has dropped and the message now firmly taken onboard, combine total assets from all sources when doing asset allocation rather than doing it on single portfolio's in isolation, it can present a very different picture. By combining my two portfolio's and adding in my other investments the distribution appears much more acceptable, the high degree of EM by the way results from including my Thai. CG-LTF which has returned almost 15% over four months! Note: I've included investment cash but not TD or savings cash or real estate etc. ![](https://s18.postimg.org/66cu0zb9h/Untitled.jpg)
|
|