> The bonds, too, should be bought through ETFs rather than directly.
UK gilts are free of CGT, but only if you hold them directly. If you buy an ETF that holds gilts you'll be paying unnecessary tax.
But also:
> Have various other properties, like [...] are accumulating (if possible).
If you buy an accumulating fund then you don't get to use your dividend allowance, but the accumulated part is still taxed as income, which you have to break out from the capital gain and pay tax on separately. So you're making your taxes more complicated and (unless you're already using your dividend allowance elsewhere) you're paying unnecessary tax.
For example, accumulating ETFs make sense in many EU countries, because often there is no dividend allowance and so dividends just gets taxed as income.
Several countries also have a system by which the capital gains tax decreases with the length of the investment, which means that accumulating ETFs make even more sense in that case.
No particular comment regarding the lost dividence allowance -- I was not aware of it.
And when you finally come to sell, your capital gain calculation is complicated because you now have to account for all these small purchases that you never directly made.
1. Stop losses seem to work [1]. Would it make sense to update your strategy accordingly -- even on indices?
2. Research from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania [2] shows that the buy-and-hold returns of the 500 original firms outperformed the returns on the continually updated S&P 500 index. Could we push the low-stress model a step further and buy the content of current indices instead of the indices themselves?
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=968338
[2] https://rodneywhitecenter.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploa...
