|
Post by ludacris on Oct 26, 2017 8:27:20 GMT 7
Hi everyone,
I just received an inheritance and I'm looking for comments on a portfolio I've put together. I'm 41 and looking to invest in a portfolio for 15-20 years that's mostly hands-off, which is made up of a small number of high quality funds.
First off, I'm going to keep 1 years living expenses in cash made up of different currencies (CAD, THB, SGD) as an emergency fund. I'm a tax resident of Thailand and regularly max out my LTF/RMF's. I've chosen the LSE because of the large selection of closed-end funds for international equities, as well as index funds for US equities. No dividend withholding tax for non-residents on the LSE is also a plus (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I understand the risks of investing 100% in equities. I don't mind the volatility (I used the 25% drop in the SET in 2015 to put in as much as I could, so a bit of experience there) and I'm looking for long-term growth over a couple decades.
I know there's a few experts here and I welcome all opinions and comments.
-Ludacris
Portfolio
US & International Equity (Holdings, Yield) ISP6.LSE* (30%) iShares S&P Small Cap 600 (600, 0.83%) FCS.LSE (25%) F&C Global Smaller Companies Trust (203, 0.84%) WTAN .LSE (20%) Witan Investment Trust (540, 4.75%) PAC.LSE (15%) First State Pacific Assets Trust (Asia exJapan) (57, 1.24%) JMG.LSE (10%) JP Morgan Emerging Markets Trust (EM) (50, 1.2%)
*I'm thinking about changing ISP6 (GBP) with IDP6 (same fund but in USD) to lessen currency risk and to hold some equities in USD. ______________________________________________________________________________
F&C Global Smaller Companies United States 43% UK 26% Europe 11% Asia 9% Japan 8%
Witan Investment Trust North America 23% UK 39% Europe 17% Far East 14% Japan 5%
First State Pacific Assets Trust India 35% Taiwan 16% Philippines 7% HK 6% Indonesia 4% Bangladesh 4% Thailand 4% Sri Lanka 3% South Korea 3%
JP Morgan Emerging Markets Trust India 24% China & HK 15% South Africa 13% Brazil 13% Taiwan 9% Mexico 6% Indonesia 5% Russia 3% South Korea 2% Argentina 1.4% Turkey 1.4% Peru 1.2% UK 1.1% Chile 0.8% Ukraine 0.7% Philippines 0.6% Poland 0.3%
Portfolio regional allocations (rough calculations): US: 45% Asia: 23% Europe: 20.5% Emerging: 10%
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 26, 2017 11:29:25 GMT 7
(1) What is your nationality? (That really means, are you American? Being American really sucks.)
(2) I'm guessing 15-20 years means "when I retire". In which country do you expect to retire? (Or, if you'll split your time between two countries, which countries.)
(3) How able/willing are you to monitor your investments, making fund changes when needed?
(4) Is this quite a small inheritance? Only holding 5 funds seems a little odd if it's something substantial (say greater than USD 100,000).
|
|
|
Post by ludacris on Oct 26, 2017 12:07:28 GMT 7
Hi AyG, thanks for the reply. To answer your questions: 1. I'm Canadian so that should make things a bit easier 2. My long-term plan is to transition into online work in the next 5 years or so, then in my late 50's slow it down to part-time or as needed to avoid getting bored. That's when I would start transitioning to a more income based portfolio with less risk. At that time though I'll have to figure out what to do with my LTF and RMF's as well. I've haven't decided where I'm going to retire, but splitting my time between Thailand/Asia and Canada would be reasonable to plan for. 3. I'm able to monitor and trade as much as needed. It's just everything I've ever read and my own experience has shown the more I leave things alone, the better the returns are. 4. It's greater than $100,000 but less than a million. If it was millions though I'd be retired and asking questions on the pension portfolio thread haha. The reason I have just 5 funds is there's almost 1500 holdings (without counting overlap) diversified around the world. With a large allocation in the US index fund combined with a small number of high quality investment trusts that have been around for decades, I think that's enough diversity for me to sleep well at night. Of course, all of that is just my initial plan and I have an open mind.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 26, 2017 12:35:36 GMT 7
Hi AyG, thanks for the reply. To answer your questions: 1. I'm Canadian so that should make things a bit easier 2. My long-term plan is to transition into online work in the next 5 years or so, then in my late 50's slow it down to part-time or as needed to avoid getting bored. That's when I would start transitioning to a more income based portfolio with less risk. At that time though I'll have to figure out what to do with my LTF and RMF's as well. I've haven't decided where I'm going to retire, but splitting my time between Thailand/Asia and Canada would be reasonable to plan for. 3. I'm able to monitor and trade as much as needed. It's just everything I've ever read and my own experience has shown the more I leave things alone, the better the returns are. 4. It's greater than $100,000 but less than a million. If it was millions though I'd be retired and asking questions on the pension portfolio thread haha. The reason I have just 5 funds is there's almost 1500 holdings (without counting overlap) diversified around the world. With a large allocation in the US index fund combined with a small number of high quality investment trusts that have been around for decades, I think that's enough diversity for me to sleep well at night. Of course, all of that is just my initial plan and I have an open mind. You've indicated you have LTFs and RMFs. It would be helpful to know what they are invested in, if they're significant in value compared with the inheritance. My initial impression is that you are underinvested in your potential "home" economies, i.e. Canada and Thailand where you'll be spending in retirement. The funds having over a thousand holdings doesn't give you genuine diversity. You need to look at a sector/asset class level. Within equities you've little exposure to Europe, Japan, Australia. You're also missing US large cap stocks. You're also not exposed to investments which will give you protection against inflation such as commercial property, infrastructure and index linked bonds. The small cap allocation looks a bit scary to me - 55%. Whilst small cap stocks typically over perform, so do income stocks. That might be an alternative way to tilt part of what you currently allocate to small caps. In your rough allocation calculation you lump the UK with Europe. I think it better to split it out separately. The Eurozone and the UK really are different markets. Incidentally, I reckon your investment selection is pretty good. I personally hold JMG, PAC and WTAN. The first two I've held for well over a decade and remain happy with them. WTAN has been a more recent investment, but it's working out well for me so far. A few trusts I hold that may be of interest to you: JESC, HEFT, SOI, UEM, ANW (if you need more Thailand exposure). (I always have 30 holdings or fewer, so anything I mention that I own I've researched very thoroughly and have high conviction.)
|
|
|
Post by ludacris on Oct 26, 2017 15:44:30 GMT 7
Thanks for the pointers. I'll make some revisions and post when finished.
I also want to ask, what kind of investing timeline would you use if you got a lump sum now? With markets at all time highs with high evaluations and US tax reform which may or may not go through right around the corner, would you go all in right away, average in (over how many months), or sit on the sidelines for a while?
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 26, 2017 15:57:15 GMT 7
I also want to ask, what kind of investing timeline would you use if you got a lump sum now? With markets at all time highs with high evaluations and US tax reform which may or may not go through right around the corner, would you go all in right away, average in (over how many months), or sit on the sidelines for a while? One thing it's impossible for mere mortals to do is time the markets. Research has shown it's best (on average) to go all in immediately. Pound/dollar/baht cost averaging has been comprehensively debunked, even though it's still widely pushed by investment advisers who (perhaps) have vested interests.
|
|
|
Post by ludacris on Oct 27, 2017 9:35:08 GMT 7
Thanks again. I've revised the allocations to decrease the small-cap holdings, added HEFT to increase the European holdings (it must have been the Canadian in me that made me think Europe and the UK are the same thing , and added IVPG for exposure to income. I'm fine with little exposure to US large caps. The extra long-term return of small caps is what I'm looking for. Even though they're more volatile, I won't be touching the portfolio for decades, and even then I should have part-time income in case the market has really tanked then. For LTF/RMF's, I'm with Krungsri and UOB. My LTF's are obviously all equity, and my RMF's are also Thai equity. Right now they are about 25% of my total assets, but that will grow for at least the next 5 years as I continue to remain employed here, while I will most likely not be adding to the inheritance portfolio. That can be re-evaluated when I do transition to online work and can't take advantage of the tax breaks. I totally understand what you're saying about having REITs and Canadian investments. For the longest time I included Artis REIT (AX.UN) (Canadian and US commercial property) in my planning along with the Starhill REIT (P40U.SG) out of Singapore for Asian/Australian property exposure. But honestly, my thinking nowadays is commercial REITs have a large retail exposure and in my opinion I think brick and mortar retail is on a severe decline, especially in North America. I'm not so keen on industrial property either. As for more Canadian exposure, I haven't found any investment trusts or ETF's that I would be comfortable with. I've looked at iShares Canadian ETF's on the Toronto exchange, and XIC.UN which is the whole market index fund returned 46% over 10 years with dividends reinvested (local iShares websites have graphs that show growth of $10,000 that you can choose time frames for that include reinvested dividends). An income ETF, XDV.UN that pays 4% returned 68% over 10 years with dividends reinvested. Compare this to IJR (NYSE equivalent of IDP6 to get 10 year data) which returned 141% over 10 years with divs reinvested. SPY returned about 105%. So from my point of view, even though Canadian equities or income funds would provide home country exposure and less currency risk, the returns that I would be giving up just aren't worth it. Of course past performance is no indicator of future performance, but we can use past performance to at least make educated decisions about what to include. Also, I thought equities provide long-term inflation exposure. Could you explain why property and inflation linked bonds are needed? Here's the updated portfolio. Please feel free to comment and give rebuttals to my points above. I really appreciate your help. Portfolio
US & International Equity (100%) (Holdings, Yield)IDP6.LSE(USD) (25%) iShares S&P Small Cap 600 (600, 0.83%) FCS.LSE (20%) F&C Global Smaller Companies Trust (203, 0.84%) WTAN.LSE (15%) Witan Investment Trust (540, 1.86%*yield corrected) IVPG.LSE (10%) Invesco Perpetual Select Trust –Global Equity Income (54,3.06%) HEFT.LSE (10%) Henderson European Focus Trust (59, 2.01%) PAC.LSE (10%) First State Pacific Assets Trust (Asia exJapan) (57, 1.24%) JMG.LSE (10%) JP Morgan Emerging Markets Trust (50, 1.2%) Regional allocations (rough calculations):US: 41% Europe: 19% Asia: 16% UK: 11% Emerging: 10%
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 27, 2017 13:35:19 GMT 7
Thanks for mentioning IVPG. It's a trust that's slipped under my radar. Will look into it. You seem on track with your Thai exposure and are making good use of your tax advantage. Since you're OK investing in Singapore REITS, I suggest you have a look again since there are a few that invest only in non-retail properties. There was one I was particularly interested in which invested in warehousing in south east and east Asia, though in the end I didn't invest. (I forget its name for the moment.) I get exposure to Thai and Singapore property through TMBAM's Property Income Plus fund. I'm very much a fan of it, even though it is rather opaque. I can't really comment on your negatitivy towards the Canadian market. It's not something that I've looked into, but I have a feeling that the stocks are heavily commodity-oriented so will probably have had a tough time over the last decade. Maybe look at funds and see if there's something more selective (and better performing) that fits your wants? Equities don't really provide full long-term inflation exposure. Consider, for example, a company producing a semi-luxury good. When inflation rises people will be less willing to spend money on such goods since they need more of their income to pay for the (increasingly expensive) necessities of life. The company's income falls, its dividend falls, and so does its share price. (Extremely luxury goods generally don't have the same problem because the ultra-wealthy have more money than they know what to do with (and little sense), so they will continue to be happy to buy solid gold toilets with mink fur-trimmed seats and diamond-encrusted handles. There is at least one fund that invests in companies making such products, and it's done pretty well over recent years.) Index-linked bonds provide 100% inflation protection, protecting both capital and income against its ravages. Commerical property has rent resets every few years, allowing funds to up rents in line with inflation, protecting income. And infrastructure often has contracts with governments which allow for inflation linked increases in charges to users. In any case, the infrastructure is often a monopoly, so the provider can charge what it likes; if I don't want to pay a fee to drive across a bridge, is a 100 mile detour really an option? Will I drive or go by bus, rather than fly from the local airport because of high charges? So, in short, these three asset classes provide better inflation protection than general equities. The problem with infrastructure at the moment is that the infrastructure investment trusts are trading at ridiculous premia to NAV. This is a general problem for all higher income assets: everything is overpriced. Personally I wouldn't buy into investments specifically for the income at the moment since (a) (repeating myself) they are over priced, and (b) since I don't pay capital gains tax anywhere income and capital growth are equivalent for me. (This does raise the point: have you considered your future CGT liability? In a couple of decades you could be looking at massive capital gains. I'm not familiar with Canada's CGT rules, but in the UK you can be charged CGT retrospectively if you return to live in the UK.) No real comments on your actual portfolio, apart from pointing out that there are cheaper ETFs than IDP6 with similar exposure. Have a look at tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/etfquickrank/default.aspx?Site=UK&Universe=ETALL%24%24ALL&category=EUCA000530&LanguageId=en-GB for a list. I do wonder whether SPDR MSCI USA Small Cap Value Weighted UCITS ETF is worth a detailed look, though it's new. Sounds interesting.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Oct 27, 2017 14:25:07 GMT 7
Nothing wrong with what you are doing or why you are doing it, I am doing exactly the same.
I also hold Witan and JP Morgan Emerg Markets.
These sort of questions invariably lead to more questions than answers, not for what you are doing but for your choices. Here are some more I hold you may wish to consider in place of what you already hold,or you may wish to add to what you hold.
Templeton Emerg Markets. Wian Pacific Invest Trust.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 27, 2017 14:38:11 GMT 7
On the relationship between stock prices and inflation (which I've just happened to read):
From "Do exchange rate changes have symmetric or asymmetric effects on stock prices?" by Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee, Sujata Saha, published in Global Finance Journal 31 (2016) 57–72. (Oh, I have the most fascinating of reading lists thanks to my partner doing a Ph.D. in Economics and wanting my advice!)
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 27, 2017 15:00:02 GMT 7
Wian Pacific Invest Trust. The attached chart is WPC against PAC. I present it without comment, apart from noting that the management of PAC changed in 2010, which is why I've presented 5 years, rather than my more usual 10. The upper line is PAC. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Oct 27, 2017 15:49:02 GMT 7
Thanks for the pointers. I'll make some revisions and post when finished. I also want to ask, what kind of investing timeline would you use if you got a lump sum now? With markets at all time highs with high evaluations and US tax reform which may or may not go through right around the corner, would you go all in right away, average in (over how many months), or sit on the sidelines for a while? Statistically and on average the sooner you invest the higher will be your return. Hence statistically on average a lump sum's expected return would beat dollar cost averaging (DCA). Two of the biggest advantages of DCA are not necessarily higher returns though and are: 1) you lower your risk of investing just before a crash 2) discipline of regular investing and building up money to invest, which is particularly useful for people investing out of their salary. I'd say the second one is less relevant where you have a lump sum to put in. So a key question is are you willing to give up a little return for less timing risk. This will depend on your own personal risk attitude and may be influenced by where you think we are in the markets, eg if you think we are towards the top of the cycle in contrast to just after a crash. Personally just after a crash I'd be much more tempted to invest a lump sum in one go rather than DCA. If we're hitting new highs that pushes me more towards DCA. Then there's what are the other risk factors on the horizon, expectations and so on. To help put in perspective and quantify a little: - If the average annual return is say 7%, ball park you may sacrifice on average 3.5% of returns by phasing in your lump over 12 months. The first 1/12 will be invested a full year, the last 1/12 not much time at all, so ball park will be about half a year less. That's maybe the average return side. But f course you could miss half a stellar year or half a bad year, or have the market tank just after your final monthly payment etc - On the risk side, there's the severe crashes where you could lose 30%, 40%, 50% or more in a year. Pick one of these by misfortune and you'd really be kicking yourself. Then there are markets like Japan which still haven't retained there highs of 20 years+ ago - From time to time and using SET as an example I look at how many times a 5 year period, 10 year period would make losses if I invested a lump sum. For 5 years it's about 10% on average, for 10 years it's obviously less. So ball park 10% of the time you will lose money by investing a lump sum for 5 years, less for 10 years and 15 i.e take every month as a start date in Excel and see where it was 5,10,15 years later. In contrast if someone used DCA over 5 years, the fact that 90% of the time you make money 5 years later, then with DCA you will be highly likely to avoid losses even over 5 years. My take: I definitely don't think we're just after a crash where the market is screaming buy. We are also hitting new highs, and while I'm not expecting a crash soon, you never know. This would tend me towards DCA and phase in your investment over 12 months. Phasing in would also give you the chance to keep some powder dry if other things of interest come up. Perhaps also you realise your portfolio isn't quite turning out to be what you wanted, so you can readjust. These investments to you now are based on theory and research you may change your views when you actually start holding them. Also bear in mind some of the smaller investment trusts may not have highly liquid markets/ volumes. We've pointed this out on other threads on here. eg I recall AYG trying to get in on a Thai(?) IT and the spreads were either too wide or unattractive prices. I've had similar experiences. For a few thousand pounds it's usually OK to get the volumes you want in a day for an investment trust. Tens of thousands you may sometimes struggle. Hundreds of thousands you may have issues. This is important also when you eventually want to sell. This is one area I prefer unit trusts. Last year for example just before the king passed away I sold a large sum in a Thai equity fund. A couple of days later he passed. I probably wouldn't have been able to do this if I was holding a Thai equity invest trust, as the volume and pricing isn't there There's also the emotional side. You've never had this lump sum before. For some people this would be nothing ventured nothing gained, double or quits high risk style. For others this might give an added level of comfort that you don't need to chase the best possible returns. Good returns with less risk would give you something you've never had before. Whereas blowing it/ taking more timing risk could go the other direction. It's down largely to your personal comfort levels, attitudes and views: For me given where we are in markets I personally would start phasing it in as soon as I'd identified the investments. Over no less than 12 months. Perhaps I might consider 2 years, but that feels a bit too long to me personally. I could live with missing a few % expected return for a lower risk profile. If in your shoes, I'd feel I'd been given a nice inheritance and the memories that come with that. I'd hate to invest it at the wrong time and have the market tank, particularly where linked to memories of someone I care about Worth noting you could also do a hybrid of the two, as it's not necessarily black or white either/or. i.e large lump sum now and phase the rest. eg invest 25%-50% now and phase the remainder over 12 or even 24 months. (Though strictly speaking this is still phasing an investment, it's not the same as equal installment DCA). This may be a nice half way house for risk and return Cheers Fletch
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Oct 27, 2017 16:07:37 GMT 7
Then there are markets like Japan which still haven't retained there highs of 20 years+ ago Oh, such bad timing! "Japan's Nikkei 225 index is above a two-decade high" From the BBC today www.bbc.com/news/business-41651086But also, there are good cases for not investing in index trackers. GLG's Japan Core Alpha (which has been a top performer for longer than I can remember) has a 10 year annualised return (in Sterling) of 10.73% (source: Morningstar).
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Oct 27, 2017 16:17:50 GMT 7
Then there are markets like Japan which still haven't retained there highs of 20 years+ ago Oh, such bad timing! "Japan's Nikkei 225 index is above a two-decade high" From the BBC today www.bbc.com/news/business-41651086But also, there are good cases for not investing in index trackers. GLG's Japan Core Alpha (which has been a top performer for longer than I can remember) has a 10 year annualised return (in Sterling) of 10.73% (source: Morningstar). Hehehe I guess you took it more literally I did stick a "+" sign on the end though It peaked at just under 39,000 at the end of 1989. That almost 28 years is the "+" I was referring to a little more loosely Still nowhere near that level. Taking a more strict view on that 20 years though in March 2009 it was a tad over 7000 with a whopping loss of 80% + ("plus" again ) in 20-ish years Thailand is also hitting two decade highs (-ish) and has similarities. Both highlight well Ludacris' risk of lump sum investing though
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Oct 27, 2017 17:37:18 GMT 7
On your portfolio and general strategy I think you've got some good core building blocks to build around. Maximising your LTFs and RMFs as a tax payer in Thailand makes a lot of sense. LTFs have to be Thai equity (or mainly Thai equity and Thai bonds mix). What you may want to consider though is widening your range of RMFS as your LTFs grow and expsoure to Thai equities grow. RMFS have a much wider remit and can have foreign equities, bonds, property etc. I appreciate you're doing at the moment for the tax breaks and Thai equity/ Thai assets/ THB exposure as you live here. What I found though is that eventually I started to become heavy in Thai equities, so then started diversifying my RMFs into non Thai equities. While often there are better funds available outside Thailand and often cheaper, the tax break on RMF makes them very worthwhile. Keeping a cash reserves as you mention is also a sound move. Two key advantages are 1) for emergencies/ if you lose your job you have a fallback 2) By retaining a decent amount of cash it can help you afford to take more risk on your actual investments, with better ability to ride out peaks and troughs. If you were all fully invested in non-cash investments and you had to sell for some cash, you can get very unlucky with timing. Investment trusts can be useful and cost-effective vehicles for investing outside Thailand. They do require a bit more investor experience and monitoring than the simpler unit trusts though: - Being aware of the discount / premiums to NAV for example is important. While over the long term you would hope it all evens even out but that's not always the case. On buying you could end up paying more relative to the average discount or even premium to NAV, and on selling you may find the discounts widen at the wrong time. Double whammies of a widening discount, and general market crash at the same time is something to watch - Be aware of liquidity/volumes of daily trades in the ITs you are looking for. If you're investing thousands of pounds probably little issue. Tens of thousands could be more of an issue. Hundreds of thousands of pounds in a fund more so. Have a look at average trading volumes compared to how much you are investing - Corporate actions such as rights issues, dividends with options for stock/cash etc take a little more monitoring too All in all, I'm sure it's all in your remit, just be aware that IT's require a little more understanding and monitoring and a bit more hands on than unit trusts On your actual portfolio proposed, I think it's a decent thought out start. What could you do to improve though? That's where input form others comes in, as we can all usually improve. A few initial summary ideas to start: - The number of holdings you have feels bit low for something that is USD 100k+. You've a good core holding but maybe a few more satellite exposures to other areas, for smaller percentages. What do you think a limit should be on any one fund (if there should be one)? For my portfolios outside Thailand I set at 10% max for any single fund and then raised it to 15% for a few exceptions. That's % of the portfolio though, rather than % of all assets/ investments. Not hard and fast rules. Just my own guidelines for me. - For the splits, that's a large weighting in US. On the other hand what about other areas, eg Japan? Do you think US will have most growth in coming years? As we stand do Europe, Asia and EMs offer better value and or/ more growth potential. I appreciate US is closer and maybe a proxy for Canada where you're from. But US markets do look high, and developed markets generally less growth potential - The weighting to smaller companies looks high. I appreciate you want the growth. But rather than doing this just company size, could you achieve it via geographical split, eg more EM, growth sectors eg technology or biotech? I've small satellite holdings in the likes of Biogrowth Trust (BIOG:LN) for example. You mightn't want say 10%, but is it worth 1%? EMs are more likely to grow than developed markets, of which you live in one US is also very strong in the technology sector. - Also what about infrastructure focused ITs or property? This could help with further diversification. I like TMB Property Income Fund AYG mentioned - not an IT of course, and bought onshore in Thailand, but worth considering in the bigger picture. We hold this as the normal fund to get some property exposure THB/SGD and for dividend income. I also actually hold the RMF version too which doesn't pay dividends, but helps diversify my RMFs and give me some property exposure - For US equities, often a tracker is useful, as it is an efficient market where active managers struggle more than most to outperform the index. So a decent thought. My main US large company fund is a tracker. Smaller companies can lend themselves more to active management rather than passive trackers though. These are tweaks to think of rather than a major rewrite, but could be worth a few %s here and there. You've got a good core start. I'd add that I hold WTAN, HEFT and JEMI (dividend paying but not dissimilar to JMG), which I do consider good starts and exposure for global equities, European equities and Emerging markets as key equity geographies. For PAC I think it's worth a look. I don't hold it myself, but do hold unit trusts from First State/Stewart Investors and rate the fund management house highly for Asia. Looking at it's performance though it looks pretty mid-table over 5 years. www.trustnet.com/fund/price-performance/t/investment-trusts?sector=T%253AFXJWhat's your rationale for PAC rather than other Asia focused IT's? Maybe AYG could also chip in here why he likes
|
|