Jesse M;330561 wrote:
Moved here so not to clog up the transactions thread
Fair comment.
To be fair up you would see that in my defence I have spent various parts of the year in large allocation to cash at up to c.30% - market over valued, due a fall back, etc etc. Before that i spent time in WP funds, never heard of them before this forum and probably a personal mistake during accumulation.
Cash will always be a factor for me in some form, this is my retirement pot and it's not massive and I can't afford a huge loss.
So past performance is not a direct comparison to a global or HSBC fund. Maybe something like LS60 or 70 if there were such a thing would be more suitable (and likely I may have underperformed against that? )
ETFs we're a late addition (no protection fears etc) but I really like them and they will stay a feature from here onwards.
Interesting, my best years were pre forum, when i just bought some funds and checked once a month if that - call it curse of the forum.
Let's see how this year goes, over time thoughts have evolved and I'm mostly passive including thematic algorithm driven.
Personal opinion (and solely personal, everyone defines this stuff differently) I think VLS 60 would be a VERY generous benchmark as your portfolio is right now 100% equities. Not only that, you're massively overweight US and tech. To me that is higher risk than a straight global equity index, but I completely understand the point that you have changed asset allocation a few times over the last year. HSBC GS Dynamic is 75% equities, with the rest being bonds and property.
I think this year is a coin flip, as you've basically made a load of massive bets with your portfolio. Big bet on the US, Tech and Quality factor. If those factors underperform the portfolio will, if they outperform you will do very well indeed assuming you stick to the allocation.
The key point though from what you've said is
Jesse M;330561 wrote:
this is my retirement pot and it's not massive and I can't afford a huge loss.
This should define your overarching investment objectives and thus your strategy, but you've stated your objective is to
beat the market. To beat the market you are taking more risk, and by taking more risk you are increasing your chances of a huge loss.
If you lost double what the market did in a down year (and didn't outperform in a good year) then something isn't quite right with the overall plan, again solely in my opinion. You're higher risk, lower reward.