Best invest and forget?

[Hippea]

I've had some money invested (around £12k) in a Vanguard LifeStrategy 60 account for about 4 years. Not looking at needing the money in the short or medium term.

Just wondering if there are better alternatives, I don't have the time or inclination to mess about much and my natural appetite for risk is low. Hence picking a LifeStrategy account. Is it worth moving it to the 100 option, or maybe S&P 500?

[okgo]

Not enough information about your aims and needs with this money.

[Hippea]

okgo said:

Not enough information about your aims and needs with this money.

No real aims or needs as such, just somewhere to save a modest lump sum. Very much a novice at this.

[AyBee]

Lifestrategy 60 is at the conservative end of the scale if you don't need the money any time soon...I'd be switching to 100.

[Hippea]

AyBee said:

Lifestrategy 60 is at the conservative end of the scale if you don't need the money any time soon...

That's my thinking, and why I'm looking for alternatives

[Panamax]

Hippea said:

just somewhere to save a modest lump sum. Very much a novice at this.

Fidelity offer their "Ready Made ISA",
https://www.fidelity.co.uk/ready-made-isa/?intcmp=...

[Simpo Two]

Hippea said:

AyBee said:

Lifestrategy 60 is at the conservative end of the scale if you don't need the money any time soon...

That's my thinking, and why I'm looking for alternatives

There's LifeStrategy 80...

[Mankers]

Hippea said:

I've had some money invested (around £12k) in a Vanguard LifeStrategy 60 account for about 4 years. Not looking at needing the money in the short or medium term.

Just wondering if there are better alternatives, I don't have the time or inclination to mess about much and my natural appetite for risk is low. Hence picking a LifeStrategy account. Is it worth moving it to the 100 option, or maybe S&P 500?

Natural appetite for risk is low, but looking at 100% equity investment?

If you walked in to see a professional advisor, stating low risk and they documented it, as they have a regulatory requirement to do, you would be in a sub 50% equity strategy. Noting also that your time horizon is short to medium term….. just saying!

[AyBee]

Mankers said:

Natural appetite for risk is low, but looking at 100% equity investment?

If you walked in to see a professional advisor, stating low risk and they documented it, as they have a regulatory requirement to do, you would be in a sub 50% equity strategy. Noting also that your time horizon is short to medium term .. just saying!

NOT looking to need the money in the short to medium term...

[butchstewie]

Mankers said:

Natural appetite for risk is low, but looking at 100% equity investment?

If you walked in to see a professional advisor, stating low risk and they documented it, as they have a regulatory requirement to do, you would be in a sub 50% equity strategy. Noting also that your time horizon is short to medium term .. just saying!

This.

People on here have a really skewed idea of what "low" risk is.

By any accepted definition of "low risk" you wouldn't be walking out of a professional engagement in a 100% equity fund.

60% equity is generally considered moderate or balanced.

Low risk would usually see you close to 40% equity depending on the exact fund.

[AyBee]

A low natural appetite for risk doesn't necessarily mean a low appetite for financial risk over a long period of time though. I'm naturally cautious when it comes to taking risks, but I'm also <40 and I don't need my invested funds any time soon so happy to be 100% invested in equities with the belief that I could lose 30% tomorrow but I've got 20 years for those funds to recover. I might be completely wrong, but if I lose 30% tomorrow and it never recovers, there will be bigger issues in the world.

[trevalvole]

Also, the UK versions of LifeStrategy have a fixed bias towards UK stocks and bonds. I say fixed in contrast to some RAFI and value funds that have an overweighting to the UK because certain UK stocks are thought to be good value. You may wish to consider whether this is something that you want?

[tele_lover]

trevalvole said:

Also, the UK versions of LifeStrategy have a fixed bias towards UK stocks and bonds. I say fixed in contrast to some RAFI and value funds that have an overweighting to the UK because certain UK stocks are thought to be good value. You may wish to consider whether this is something that you want?

Good luck to anyone investing in UK companies with this Government.

[Jon39]

tele_lover said:

trevalvole said:

Also, the UK versions of LifeStrategy have a fixed bias towards UK stocks and bonds. I say fixed in contrast to some RAFI and value funds that have an overweighting to the UK because certain UK stocks are thought to be good value. You may wish to consider whether this is something that you want?

Good luck to anyone investing in UK companies with this Government.

Yes, we might expect that (no encouragement for entrepreneurs now) but the London market has so far, had an exceptionally good year, even beating USA.

Remember that many of the largest FTSE 100 companies do most of their business not in the UK, but all around the world.
They might have originally begun in the UK and arranged their listing here, but that can sometimes be misleading.
Some (eg. oil and gas explorers) have already responded to the current and previous governments, deserted the UK area and have taken that investment away to make profit elsewhere. Good management responds to circumstances.

[MrSchloss]

Year

FTSE100 MSCI World
2024 9.63% 20.43%
2023 7.90% 17.08%
2022 4.67% -8.25%
2021 18.40% 23.36%
2020 -11.58% 12.12%
2019 17.28% 23.76%
2018 -8.77% -3.60%
2017 11.91% 11.48%
2016 19.04% 29.53%
2015 -1.34% 4.17%
2014 0.72% 11.36%
2013 18.65% 23.81%
2012 9.94% 10.98%
2011 -2.19% -5.34%
2010 12.62% 16.78%
2009 27.33% 17.09%
2008 -28.33% -18.55%
2007 4.48% 6.53%
2006 13.10% 5.38%
2005 20.25% 22.87%
2004 8.99% 6.41%
2003 16.70% 19.75%
2002 -19.28% -28.03%
2001 -14.01% -14.38%