moorfield wrote:Out of interest, may I ask how have you done over the last twenty one years, ie. xirr compared to
monabri's calculation of 8.23% for HYP1?
Jumping in ...
To end of 2020 annualised nominal accumulation total returns I'm seeing indicate
HYP 7.8%
FT250 8.7%
FTAS 4.5%
US £ 7.9%
World 7.4%
BUT! US, World, FTAS all got blown out of the water on a income provision basis i.e. 4% SWR and a bad sequence of returns risk coming to light saw the portfolio values severely depleted/wiped whilst HYP1 has > original inflation adjusted start date value still intact.
Comparing to a "basket" of equal initial allocations of CGT, PNL, RICA, FCIT, BRK, FT250
since 2005 saw broad total return alignment to HYP1 i.e. a diverse 50/50 blend of conservative/preservative (CGT/PNL/RICA) and growth (BRK/FT250/FCIT).
Other "baskets", I don't know, and have concern that they were retrospectively identified and back-run to align to the HYP1 start date. From later, such as from 2010, and anything holding US stock exposure (such as World that has around 50% US stock weighting) would be positively biased by the great gains that US stock have made since 2010, of the order 16% annualised nominal in US$ terms and more when £/$ Brexit £ declines are factored in.
Broadly I'd say all similar rewards and more a case of whichever set/style/method you are more inclined to favour. One of the greatest investment risks sits between the keyboard and back of chair (profit chasing/switching tends to induce a 2% average lag factor, where for some that is considerably worse i.e. they'd been better off had they just held cash deposits).