VLS returns over 10 years

[red_slr]

Vanguard LS funds have just passed 10 years. Here are the numbers

LifeStrategy 20% equity 73.6%
LifeStrategy 40% equity 97.4%
LifeStrategy 60% equity 123.6%
LifeStrategy 80% equity 151.0%
LifeStrategy 100% equity 179.2%

I am sure there will be more data produced at some point but from what I have seen it looks ok to me?

[Rob_125]

What would be more useful would be data comparing say, drip feeding 100k into each during that period, compared to other well known funds, taking into account the on going charges, to see real world returns.

But yes, those number don't look bad, I have vls 60. Very tempted to reduce the amount going into that and start investing in on of their global equity options.

[MikeKite]

Rob_125 said:

What would be more useful would be data comparing say, drip feeding 100k into each during that period, compared to other well known funds, taking into account the on going charges, to see real world returns.

But yes, those number don't look bad, I have vls 60. Very tempted to reduce the amount going into that and start investing in on of their global equity options.

"What would be more useful would be data comparing say, drip feeding 100k into each during that period, compared to other well known funds, taking into account the on going charges, to see real world returns. "

Useful in what way?

[Rob_125]

To make comparions across the board based on performance vs cost? Otherwise the figures are meaningless to an extent.

[Grr_Boris]

red_slr said:

Vanguard LS funds have just passed 10 years. Here are the numbers

LifeStrategy 20% equity 73.6%
LifeStrategy 40% equity 97.4%
LifeStrategy 60% equity 123.6%
LifeStrategy 80% equity 151.0%
LifeStrategy 100% equity 179.2%

I am sure there will be more data produced at some point but from what I have seen it looks ok to me?

It would be helpful to understand the performance of various equity indices for comparison, as well as some risk measure - standard deviation of return etc.

I think the S&P500 would be >250% over the same period, albeit with higher volatility.

Edited by Grr_Boris on Monday 12th July 12:18

[keo]

Rob_125 said:

But yes, those number don't look bad, I have vls 60. Very tempted to reduce the amount going into that and start investing in on of their global equity options.

Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference? Mine is LS but it’s split over all global markets.

[MikeKite]

Rob_125 said:

To make comparions across the board based on performance vs cost? Otherwise the figures are meaningless to an extent.

Unless you dig a lot deeper than that the figures are meaningless, one could argue they are detrimental to investing success- a lot of investors chase performance with no real concept of what they are investing in.

[MikeKite]

Grr_Boris said:

red_slr said:

Vanguard LS funds have just passed 10 years. Here are the numbers

LifeStrategy 20% equity 73.6%
LifeStrategy 40% equity 97.4%
LifeStrategy 60% equity 123.6%
LifeStrategy 80% equity 151.0%
LifeStrategy 100% equity 179.2%

I am sure there will be more data produced at some point but from what I have seen it looks ok to me?

It would be helpful to understand the performance of various equity indices for comparison, as well as some risk measure - standard deviation of return etc.

I think the S&P500 would be >250% over the same period, albeit with higher volatility.

Edited by Grr_Boris on Monday 12th July 12:18

You would need to understand what has driven the returns, volatility might not give you all that you are looking for. Many would look at the high PE multiples of some of the S&P and feel that to be risky.

[Grr_Boris]

MikeKite said:

You would need to understand what has driven the returns, volatility might not give you all that you are looking for. Many would look at the high PE multiples of some of the S&P and feel that to be risky.

It might not, but the point was that it would give you a much more informative picture than just absolute returns with no market comparators or risk measures.

[xeny]

keo said:

Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference? Mine is LS but it’s split over all global markets.

LS has a disproportionately high level of UK equities in it compared to a global market cap weighted fund.

[chip*]

MikeKite said:

Unless you dig a lot deeper than that the figures are meaningless, one could argue they are detrimental to investing success- a lot of investors chase performance with no real concept of what they are investing in.

I would stick my neck out and say this applies to the bulk (>90%?) of retail investors who either decide based on past performance charts or simply falling for the usual corporate sales patter from the charming salesman/client facing advisors.

[halo34]

Vanguard didnt give me any patter but have decent returns over 3 yrs now - so going to stick to my plan

[SlimJ]

xeny said:

LS has a disproportionately high level of UK equities in it compared to a global market cap weighted fund.

I'm looking at moving my Cash ISA into a S&S ISA then continuing to max out the £20k allowance every year when possible. Based on my research, the Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap is perhaps the better option with less weighting to the UK making it more globally diversified?

[keo]

xeny said:

LS has a disproportionately high level of UK equities in it compared to a global market cap weighted fund.

Thank you

[CarlosFandango11]

Grr_Boris said:

red_slr said:

Vanguard LS funds have just passed 10 years. Here are the numbers

LifeStrategy 20% equity 73.6%
LifeStrategy 40% equity 97.4%
LifeStrategy 60% equity 123.6%
LifeStrategy 80% equity 151.0%
LifeStrategy 100% equity 179.2%

I am sure there will be more data produced at some point but from what I have seen it looks ok to me?

It would be helpful to understand the performance of various equity indices for comparison, as well as some risk measure - standard deviation of return etc.

I think the S&P500 would be >250% over the same period, albeit with higher volatility.

Edited by Grr_Boris on Monday 12th July 12:18

You're forgetting dividends, the total return is a fair bit higher.

Edited by CarlosFandango11 on Monday 12th July 16:22

[Grr_Boris]

CarlosFandango11 said:

You're forgetting dividends, the total return is a fair bit higher.

You are quite correct, S&P500 TR Index is up around 300% between 30-6-2011 and 30-6-2021.

[NickCQ]

red_slr said:

Vanguard LS funds have just passed 10 years. Here are the numbers

LifeStrategy 20% equity 73.6% / 5.7%
LifeStrategy 40% equity 97.4% / 7.0%
LifeStrategy 60% equity 123.6% / 8.4%
LifeStrategy 80% equity 151.0% / 9.6%
LifeStrategy 100% equity 179.2% / 10.8%

Added annualised rates of return. If you had filled a couple's ISA allowance of £40k each year for the last 10 years and put it in LS100, you'd now have c. £750k (£400k contributed, £350k tax free market gains).

[Grr_Boris]

NickCQ said:

red_slr said:

Vanguard LS funds have just passed 10 years. Here are the numbers

LifeStrategy 20% equity 73.6% / 5.7%
LifeStrategy 40% equity 97.4% / 7.0%
LifeStrategy 60% equity 123.6% / 8.4%
LifeStrategy 80% equity 151.0% / 9.6%
LifeStrategy 100% equity 179.2% / 10.8%

Added annualised rates of return. If you had filled a couple's ISA allowance of £40k each year for the last 10 years and put it in LS100, you'd now have c. £750k (£400k contributed, £350k tax free market gains).

Do you have the returns for the individual years over the last 10 years or are you just assuming that each year returned the average?

[xeny]

Rob_125 said:

What would be more useful would be data comparing say, drip feeding 100k into each during that period, compared to other well known funds, taking into account the on going charges, to see real world returns.

Is that really that useful over 10 years for this kind of diversified fund?

Unless you start specifying when in the month you're drip feeding, and you've got month by month performance figures for the funds you're comparing, I'm not certain it would generate much more information (as opposed to pot luck when in the month you invested) compared to assuming reasonably uniform growth. These figures are typically after ongoing charges, so they're already taken into account.

[NickCQ]

Grr_Boris said:

Do you have the returns for the individual years over the last 10 years or are you just assuming that each year returned the average?

I took the average and rounded it up a bit to account for above average returns in recent years when the portfolio balance was higher.