Joined: 15/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,357
Thanks: 426 times
Was thanked: 3900 time(s) in 1014 post(s)
|
Cm258;331990 wrote:ben ski;331984 wrote:SF100;331977 wrote:
Would they? Based on what?
Define 'similar asset profiles'
And what if we end up back at zirp,
still no downside and we should just adopt a 60:40 MAF anyway?
I think in principle, MAFs should be no-brainers. They could do everything SJP charge you 2-3% for.. But I think they're too undefined for real investors. There's an argument that long duration bonds are really for institutionals (insurance, endowments, etc.) – they can have 40, 50 year liabilities to match. For a typical saver, it doesn't make much sense to have capital tied up that long. So LifeStrategy did its job, of tracking the market. But was the market's exposure to bonds really right for a saver? I think the same with real assets. These MAFs are all-in on financial assets. And in the real economy, real assets are much bigger market than stocks. The 1970s would've been a bad time for most these MAFs. Interestingly, AJ Bell have gone the other way with real assets (infra, property). See https://www.trustnet.com...ional-bonds-and-equities There is an argument for that, with bonds finally offering some value. If your models are based on the numbers, then that makes sense. But debt and debt refinancing – when you look at those numbers, and figure we may have an oversupply of bonds coming to the market, potentially a lot more money printing to buy those bonds, slowdown as refinancing represents a larger part of GDP .. These are stagflationary – lot of potential risk, holding assets that aren't pegged to inflation.
|
|
|
1 user thanked ben ski for this post.
|