ryanlpconnell wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:39 am
Apologies for the confusing holdings layout and lack of information, I actually posted my reply this morning before seeing your reply about this despite the time difference, and I do now see my original format is incorrect with regards to the forum subject guidelines.I think of my portfolio as a whole and so the individual accounts do not make sense as balanced portfolios by themselves (perhaps this is considered bad practice?).
In general I allocate to assets according to the bigger picture, irrespective of which account – however, where convenient with the ISA having more bonds than stocks, because it does double as a worst case scenario fund e.g. ‘someone is going to repossess the house’. I can confirm I also have cash for the more likely emergencies.
Valuethinker wrote: Sun Oct 12, 2025 4:04 pm
– you are assuming the UK government stays solvent (a pretty good assumption, but an assumption)
So this may explain why I have taken the route I’ve, (so far anyway) taken…
I feel uncomfortable assuming the UK gov stays solvent . It’s not that I wouldn’t allocate some of my inflation bonds in ILG… but this should explain why I started to move from ILG to global Inflation linked Bonds and have since questioned my logic.
Tbh, it’s also why at the turn of the year I already started to phase in 10% in gold, but anticipated a bit of a tide coming and made a bigger contribution which ultimately drove itself to 10% and then I stopped. I know bad market timing behaviour on my part, but I can’t undo the action now.
I say gold is for inflation, but really, it’s a mental comfort to know if western govs do start defaulting on bonds… I imagine gold would go insane to balance some of that.
I agree the political storm is coming to the UK. It’s already here, in fact.
But the UK is governed by institutional conservatism. After all, it was the bond market which forced a change of Prime Minister in 2022 – she now spends her time at American conferences condemning woke bond fund managers.
So I don’t see default as a significant risk. Inflation, yes. It will (always) prove to be much easier to cut taxes than to cut spending. But default? (Someone might point out we live in extraordinary times, where the institutional norms are overturned).
I realise in modern times, the IMF steps in before that happens (for the countries they like) – but there appears to be a racing political momentum towards insular thinking and protectionism, so I’m sceptical of the longevity and effectiveness of the IMF, NATO etc. Looking back home to the UK specifically, I’m also increasingly less optimistic about who will take over responsibility for the national debt next.
You are sketching nightmare scenarios, but not necessarily incorrect ones. The UK did go to the IMF in the 1970s. But the circumstances were quite different.
I think this really exposes my confused and indecisive position on ILG vs global inflation linked, and the risky jump into gold.Writing my thoughts down like this I do admit though, the chances of gov defaults are hopefully less likely than an extreme drop in the price of gold and that the rebalancing whenever gold allocation drops will be a psychological problem, which I probably need to ponder ASAP.
Good to think these things through.
If you look at the Global Inflation Linked bond index, you see (from memory only) quite a bit of Italy and France. A lot of USA. Is the UK really so much worse as a credit risk?
Following this, would you consider it mad to sub split the index-linked between ILG and global index-linked bonds fund?Thanks for your help so far, it is much appreciated.
It really depends on what your thinking is, which you have outlined above. About the UK credit risks. The big thing about UK gilts, both nominal and Index-linked, is the duration of the index is relatively long – hence more sensitivity to interest rate changes.
