Is it worth having 2 S&S isa's?
Discussion
Last year I set up a nutmeg account and have around £6k in it which up until last week was doing well at around 7.5%.
I am looking at opening a Vanguard LifeStrategy 80:20 plan in the new tax year but not sure what option I should take:
- Leave the 6k in nutmeg as returns were quite good, stop paying into it after 6th April (as I'm 99% sure you cant pay into 2 S&S ISA's in the same tax year) and start a fresh pot in Vanguard.
- Transfer it to Vanguard, add a top up (the fresh pot in above option) then normal monthly contributions.
- Leave it in nutmeg and continue contributions. Sack off the Vanguard plan.
Is it beneficial to have multiple S&S ISA's?
Only downside I can think of is that you are paying charges on both, rather than one.
Open to suggestions as I'm a bit new to this.
Thanks
I am looking at opening a Vanguard LifeStrategy 80:20 plan in the new tax year but not sure what option I should take:
- Leave the 6k in nutmeg as returns were quite good, stop paying into it after 6th April (as I'm 99% sure you cant pay into 2 S&S ISA's in the same tax year) and start a fresh pot in Vanguard.
- Transfer it to Vanguard, add a top up (the fresh pot in above option) then normal monthly contributions.
- Leave it in nutmeg and continue contributions. Sack off the Vanguard plan.
Is it beneficial to have multiple S&S ISA's?
Only downside I can think of is that you are paying charges on both, rather than one.
Open to suggestions as I'm a bit new to this.
Thanks
cbehagg242 said:
Last year I set up a nutmeg account and have around £6k in it which up until last week was doing well at around 7.5%.
I am looking at opening a Vanguard LifeStrategy 80:20 plan in the new tax year but not sure what option I should take:
- Leave the 6k in nutmeg as returns were quite good, stop paying into it after 6th April (as I'm 99% sure you cant pay into 2 S&S ISA's in the same tax year) and start a fresh pot in Vanguard.
- Transfer it to Vanguard, add a top up (the fresh pot in above option) then normal monthly contributions.
- Leave it in nutmeg and continue contributions. Sack off the Vanguard plan.
Is it beneficial to have multiple S&S ISA's?
Only downside I can think of is that you are paying charges on both, rather than one.
Open to suggestions as I'm a bit new to this.
Thanks
If there are fixed (£) charges then it probably doesn’t make sense to have more than one account. If all charges are percentage-based then it makes no difference.I am looking at opening a Vanguard LifeStrategy 80:20 plan in the new tax year but not sure what option I should take:
- Leave the 6k in nutmeg as returns were quite good, stop paying into it after 6th April (as I'm 99% sure you cant pay into 2 S&S ISA's in the same tax year) and start a fresh pot in Vanguard.
- Transfer it to Vanguard, add a top up (the fresh pot in above option) then normal monthly contributions.
- Leave it in nutmeg and continue contributions. Sack off the Vanguard plan.
Is it beneficial to have multiple S&S ISA's?
Only downside I can think of is that you are paying charges on both, rather than one.
Open to suggestions as I'm a bit new to this.
Thanks
Both Nutmeg and Vanguard (and virtually every other ISA provider) charge a percentage fee, so you will not be paying two sets of fees.
Nutmeg is not expensive, but Vanguard is so cheap it makes Nutmeg appear so!
There are important differences between the two approaches though. Nutmeg actively manage a portfolio of passive funds for you. Vanguard is simply a passive fund provider and it is up to you to select the right fund(s) for your needs.
So you are not comparing apples with apples to a degree.
Some people believe it is better to have someone managing their portfolio for them on a set risk/reward scale, others believe that it is better to invest in a mix of global equities and bonds at a cheaper price point.
I prefer the former approach, others will disagree. There is certainly no harm testing this out yourself by using Vanguard next tax year and comparing the two side by side.
Nutmeg is not expensive, but Vanguard is so cheap it makes Nutmeg appear so!
There are important differences between the two approaches though. Nutmeg actively manage a portfolio of passive funds for you. Vanguard is simply a passive fund provider and it is up to you to select the right fund(s) for your needs.
So you are not comparing apples with apples to a degree.
Some people believe it is better to have someone managing their portfolio for them on a set risk/reward scale, others believe that it is better to invest in a mix of global equities and bonds at a cheaper price point.
I prefer the former approach, others will disagree. There is certainly no harm testing this out yourself by using Vanguard next tax year and comparing the two side by side.
JulianPH said:
Both Nutmeg and Vanguard (and virtually every other ISA provider) charge a percentage fee, so you will not be paying two sets of fees.
Nutmeg is not expensive, but Vanguard is so cheap it makes Nutmeg appear so!
There are important differences between the two approaches though. Nutmeg actively manage a portfolio of passive funds for you. Vanguard is simply a passive fund provider and it is up to you to select the right fund(s) for your needs.
So you are not comparing apples with apples to a degree.
Some people believe it is better to have someone managing their portfolio for them on a set risk/reward scale, others believe that it is better to invest in a mix of global equities and bonds at a cheaper price point.
I prefer the former approach, others will disagree. There is certainly no harm testing this out yourself by using Vanguard next tax year and comparing the two side by side.
Thanks Julian. I was actually looking at the LifeStrategy funds which appear to be managed portfolio's. Think I will go ahead with the 80:20.Nutmeg is not expensive, but Vanguard is so cheap it makes Nutmeg appear so!
There are important differences between the two approaches though. Nutmeg actively manage a portfolio of passive funds for you. Vanguard is simply a passive fund provider and it is up to you to select the right fund(s) for your needs.
So you are not comparing apples with apples to a degree.
Some people believe it is better to have someone managing their portfolio for them on a set risk/reward scale, others believe that it is better to invest in a mix of global equities and bonds at a cheaper price point.
I prefer the former approach, others will disagree. There is certainly no harm testing this out yourself by using Vanguard next tax year and comparing the two side by side.
cbehagg242 said:
Thanks Julian. I was actually looking at the LifeStrategy funds which appear to be managed portfolio's. Think I will go ahead with the 80:20.
These are managed funds (rather than portfolios - but this is largely semantics if held within an ISA/SIPP) and the management is quite simplistic (and at that price there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this!).Vanguard equate risk/reward to equity exposure. The more equity the higher the potential risk/reward. The level of equity/bond exposure is fixed and cannot be strayed from.
Model portfolios set the definition of the risk/reward at portfolio level, but are free to change asset exposure whenever the manager considers this wise (rather than have to stick to the asset exposure of the fund, regardless of external factors).
This gives more investment management flexibility, but does come with higher fees (not necessarily 'high' fees though, such as with full discretionary investment management).
As I said, neither approach is right or wrong and I think it would be interesting for you to compare the two side by side to decide which suits you the best.
JulianPH said:
These are managed funds (rather than portfolios - but this is largely semantics if held within an ISA/SIPP) and the management is quite simplistic (and at that price there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this!).
Vanguard equate risk/reward to equity exposure. The more equity the higher the potential risk/reward. The level of equity/bond exposure is fixed and cannot be strayed from.
Model portfolios set the definition of the risk/reward at portfolio level, but are free to change asset exposure whenever the manager considers this wise (rather than have to stick to the asset exposure of the fund, regardless of external factors).
This gives more investment management flexibility, but does come with higher fees (not necessarily 'high' fees though, such as with full discretionary investment management).
As I said, neither approach is right or wrong and I think it would be interesting for you to compare the two side by side to decide which suits you the best.
Ahh I see, thanks I didn't realise the difference. Yeah I think I will have a go with Vangaurd come the new tax year. Vanguard equate risk/reward to equity exposure. The more equity the higher the potential risk/reward. The level of equity/bond exposure is fixed and cannot be strayed from.
Model portfolios set the definition of the risk/reward at portfolio level, but are free to change asset exposure whenever the manager considers this wise (rather than have to stick to the asset exposure of the fund, regardless of external factors).
This gives more investment management flexibility, but does come with higher fees (not necessarily 'high' fees though, such as with full discretionary investment management).
As I said, neither approach is right or wrong and I think it would be interesting for you to compare the two side by side to decide which suits you the best.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff