|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jun 18, 2015 23:27:14 GMT 7
UK stock market only, 20k sterling, or 1 million baht. Not looking to get rich quick, but better than leaving it in the bank. Invested for the long term, eg 10-15 years, dont need regular income, as long as it beats the miserly bank rates, thats enough.
Fire away, some of your thoughts I may already hold, nothing wrong with pouring more money into the same pot.
I dont do gold or magic jumping beans.
|
|
The Arrow
Vigilante
Vigilante
Posts: 3,034
Likes: 1,837
|
Post by The Arrow on Jun 19, 2015 3:52:33 GMT 7
Breast implants.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jun 19, 2015 9:56:26 GMT 7
Investment trusts: Personal Assets, Ruffer Fund: Ecclesiastical Higher Income All are managed defensively. For example, Ruffer's maximum drawdown has been 7.36%. Personal Assets is more extremely defensive than the other two, so hasn't grown as fast. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Jun 19, 2015 10:06:44 GMT 7
Simplest pick for one single investment would be Neil Woodfords CF Woodford Equity Income fund. Though I suspct you may already own it He has decades of outperforming the UK income sector. Just won best performer on his new fund in his new company, which started about a year ago, and looks like he is continuing where he left off at Invesco Perpetual, where he had couple or decades or so of out performance If you don't want the income paid out in dividends - will yield around 3% -4% in dividends if you select income units - then select the accumulation units bigmango.boards.net/post/28890/threadWould add that I hold it myself, for my mum, brother, sister-in-law, nephew etc and would consider adding it as a core holding for most people who have some form of UK equity portfolio. [Edit: for some reason the links below don't work automatically and don't go to the right page, but do if someone cuts and pastes] www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/c/cf-woodford-equity-income-accumulation www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/c/cf-woodford-equity-income-accumulation/research
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jun 19, 2015 12:03:10 GMT 7
Simplest pick for one single investment would be Neil Woodfords CF Woodford Equity Income fund. I'm not sure I'd buy into it at the moment. The search for income in these decidedly abnormal markets has pushed up the price of all higher yielding asset classes. When things return to normal prices will probably fall, possibly quite dramatically. Over 10 years, that may not matter too much, but at the moment something rather more defensive might be preferable.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,556
Likes: 8,920
|
Post by rubl on Jun 19, 2015 12:08:27 GMT 7
Where not to park it:
Greeks withdraw 2 billion Euro from banks in last three days.
Mind you, I'm absolutely amazed that the Greeks are still able to withdraw (their) money from (their) banks as they've been doing so for six or more months. All rich? No one paying taxes? Bills send to the 'richer' countries in the EC?
I must admit I never really understood higher finance and economics.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jun 19, 2015 14:23:40 GMT 7
Thanks lads, two I will need to investigate and pull up some performance charts.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Jun 19, 2015 14:44:23 GMT 7
Simplest pick for one single investment would be Neil Woodfords CF Woodford Equity Income fund. I'm not sure I'd buy into it at the moment. The search for income in these decidedly abnormal markets has pushed up the price of all higher yielding asset classes. When things return to normal prices will probably fall, possibly quite dramatically. Over 10 years, that may not matter too much, but at the moment something rather more defensive might be preferable. This is where knowing the fund manager and fund really comes in, to understand exactly who and what someone is investing in. Some points: At first glance if someone just reads equity income fund, they may make those assumptions. But: The fund isn't particularly high yielding @ around 3.4%, and doesn't set a particular income target. It would also be a mistake also to assume the fund only invests in HY assets, as around 15% is in smaller companies, so a warning to be careful on reading just the fund overview or sector name. (Worth noting it's not just HY assets that have risen, but most assets on the back of QE, low interest rates etc.) If picking defensive funds now we then leave ourselves with the decision of trying to time when to move to a more aggressive fund. Woodford has the remit to move in and out of sectors he sees fit, and I'd back him to get the timing right more than myself and most other people I know on the UK market, when to be defensive and when not, but in addition perhaps more important to identify long term value.10 - 15 year time frame would prefer its flexibility to something deliberately defensive, which by nature will be lower risk lower reward. Also he is focused on long term value rather than short term markets, which many fund managers make mistakes with. This quote exactly addresses that point:
"Woodford believes the fund management industry has an inherent weakness because of its obsession with the short term.
Benjamin Graham, often described as the father of value investing, said that in the short term, the stock market is like a voting machine - tallying up which firms are popular and unpopular. But in the long run, the market is like a weighing machine - assessing the substance of a company. In this way Woodford can take advantage of swings in short-term sentiment, purchasing businesses below what he believes is their intrinsic value, and then hold for the long term, waiting for this value to be recognised by others.
It is over the long term, therefore, where he believes he can add significant value for investors. Accordingly, he tends to invest with a time horizon of at least three to five years, often longer. Naturally he won't get it right every time - inevitably some companies will struggle or fail altogether, and so the fund will still lose money at times."
If someone reads some of the many articles on the fund, they'll see that Woodford has actually positioned himself to support his cautious view on the economy, which is the worry being raised www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/neil-woodford-my-approachwww.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-news-and-investment-ideas/fund-news--and--alerts/cf-woodford-equity-income-fund-research-update-2014-12-08www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/neil-woodford-why-i-invest-in-unquoted-companies
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jun 19, 2015 17:34:28 GMT 7
If picking defensive funds now we then leave ourselves with the decision of trying to time when to move to a more aggressive fund. 10 - 15 year time frame would prefer its flexibility to something deliberately defensive, which by nature will be lower risk lower reward. The OP isn't very clear about his current situation. He appears to be looking for a single investment to hold (rather than something as part of a larger portfolio), and only seeks modest performance. That to me does point to "lower risk, lower reward". These days around a third of my investments fall into that category. It took me years to learn that I would be better off with a more plodding, steady portfolio than one which was predicated upon maximum growth. It was the tortoise that won the race, not the hare, after all. So personally I don't feel a need to cycle between defensive funds and aggressive ones. For one thing, I know I'm not smart enough accurately to time the market. (I'm not sure anybody is.) Buy defensive and hold. Top fund managers do slip up. Max Ward had a great reputation and did very well for his investors, but slipped up very badly during the crash by being overweight financials. Woodford (whilst a fine fund manager who's done a very good job for a number of years) can't really defy gravity all the time and may have a similar fall. And one final point: if I were in a liner about to hit an iceberg, I'd rather be half on board a lifeboat than listening to the orchestra.
|
|
The Arrow
Vigilante
Vigilante
Posts: 3,034
Likes: 1,837
|
Post by The Arrow on Jun 19, 2015 17:36:52 GMT 7
If picking defensive funds now we then leave ourselves with the decision of trying to time when to move to a more aggressive fund. 10 - 15 year time frame would prefer its flexibility to something deliberately defensive, which by nature will be lower risk lower reward. The OP isn't very clear about his current situation. He appears to be looking for a single investment to hold (rather than something as part of a larger portfolio), and only seeks modest performance. That to me does point to "lower risk, lower reward". These days around a third of my investments fall into that category. It took me years to learn that I would be better off with a more plodding, steady portfolio than one which was predicated upon maximum growth. It was the tortoise that won the race, not the hare, after all. So personally I don't feel a need to cycle between defensive funds and aggressive ones. For one thing, I know I'm not smart enough accurately to time the market. (I'm not sure anybody is.) Buy defensive and hold. Top fund managers do slip up. Max Ward had a great reputation and did very well for his investors, but slipped up very badly during the crash by being overweight financials. Woodford (whilst a fine fund manager who's done a very good job for a number of years) can't really defy gravity all the time and may have a similar fall. And one final point: if I were in a liner about to hit an iceberg, I'd rather be half on board a lifeboat than listening to the orchestra. RG's trying to come up with an excuse not to go on a bender with £20k. Just buy a Harley is my advice.
|
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Jun 19, 2015 18:07:24 GMT 7
The OP isn't very clear about his current situation. He appears to be looking for a single investment to hold (rather than something as part of a larger portfolio), and only seeks modest performance. That to me does point to "lower risk, lower reward". These days around a third of my investments fall into that category. It took me years to learn that I would be better off with a more plodding, steady portfolio than one which was predicated upon maximum growth. It was the tortoise that won the race, not the hare, after all. So personally I don't feel a need to cycle between defensive funds and aggressive ones. For one thing, I know I'm not smart enough accurately to time the market. (I'm not sure anybody is.) Buy defensive and hold. Top fund managers do slip up. Max Ward had a great reputation and did very well for his investors, but slipped up very badly during the crash by being overweight financials. Woodford (whilst a fine fund manager who's done a very good job for a number of years) can't really defy gravity all the time and may have a similar fall. And one final point: if I were in a liner about to hit an iceberg, I'd rather be half on board a lifeboat than listening to the orchestra. RG's trying to come up with an excuse not to go on a bender with £20k. Just buy a Harley is my advice. A boat is better...it just soaks up your spare money so you do not have to worry about what to invest in.
|
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Jun 19, 2015 18:17:54 GMT 7
The OP isn't very clear about his current situation. He appears to be looking for a single investment to hold (rather than something as part of a larger portfolio), and only seeks modest performance. That to me does point to "lower risk, lower reward". These days around a third of my investments fall into that category. It took me years to learn that I would be better off with a more plodding, steady portfolio than one which was predicated upon maximum growth. It was the tortoise that won the race, not the hare, after all. So personally I don't feel a need to cycle between defensive funds and aggressive ones. For one thing, I know I'm not smart enough accurately to time the market. (I'm not sure anybody is.) Buy defensive and hold. Top fund managers do slip up. Max Ward had a great reputation and did very well for his investors, but slipped up very badly during the crash by being overweight financials. Woodford (whilst a fine fund manager who's done a very good job for a number of years) can't really defy gravity all the time and may have a similar fall. And one final point: if I were in a liner about to hit an iceberg, I'd rather be half on board a lifeboat than listening to the orchestra. RG's trying to come up with an excuse not to go on a bender with £20k. Just buy a Harley is my advice. My advice would be to stay away from bend( ov )er with or without 20K
|
|
The Arrow
Vigilante
Vigilante
Posts: 3,034
Likes: 1,837
|
Post by The Arrow on Jun 19, 2015 19:10:38 GMT 7
Posh bagpipes.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jun 19, 2015 21:19:20 GMT 7
The OP isn't very clear about his current situation. He appears to be looking for a single investment to hold (rather than something as part of a larger portfolio), and only seeks modest performance. That to me does point to "lower risk, lower reward". These days around a third of my investments fall into that category. It took me years to learn that I would be better off with a more plodding, steady portfolio than one which was predicated upon maximum growth. It was the tortoise that won the race, not the hare, after all. So personally I don't feel a need to cycle between defensive funds and aggressive ones. For one thing, I know I'm not smart enough accurately to time the market. (I'm not sure anybody is.) Buy defensive and hold. Top fund managers do slip up. Max Ward had a great reputation and did very well for his investors, but slipped up very badly during the crash by being overweight financials. Woodford (whilst a fine fund manager who's done a very good job for a number of years) can't really defy gravity all the time and may have a similar fall. And one final point: if I were in a liner about to hit an iceberg, I'd rather be half on board a lifeboat than listening to the orchestra. RG's trying to come up with an excuse not to go on a bender with £20k. Just buy a Harley is my advice. I can assure you M, it will be a cold day in hell before you ever see me on a Harley, never mind part with good money to own one. Not suffering from the middle age menopause, dont feel the need to prove my manhood or virility. Much more likely to be found on one of these fine beasts. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jun 19, 2015 21:31:47 GMT 7
If picking defensive funds now we then leave ourselves with the decision of trying to time when to move to a more aggressive fund. 10 - 15 year time frame would prefer its flexibility to something deliberately defensive, which by nature will be lower risk lower reward. The OP isn't very clear about his current situation. He appears to be looking for a single investment to hold (rather than something as part of a larger portfolio), and only seeks modest performance. That to me does point to "lower risk, lower reward". These days around a third of my investments fall into that category. It took me years to learn that I would be better off with a more plodding, steady portfolio than one which was predicated upon maximum growth. It was the tortoise that won the race, not the hare, after all. So personally I don't feel a need to cycle between defensive funds and aggressive ones. For one thing, I know I'm not smart enough accurately to time the market. (I'm not sure anybody is.) Buy defensive and hold. Top fund managers do slip up. Max Ward had a great reputation and did very well for his investors, but slipped up very badly during the crash by being overweight financials. Woodford (whilst a fine fund manager who's done a very good job for a number of years) can't really defy gravity all the time and may have a similar fall. And one final point: if I were in a liner about to hit an iceberg, I'd rather be half on board a lifeboat than listening to the orchestra. The OP is trying to be proactive and think outside the box. Yes looking for a single investment to hold as part of a portfolio, yes modest performane is acceptable, looking for wealth protection rather than generation. Already hold the usual suspects, Alliance, Monks Witan and Scottish Mortagage. Already hold a spread of blue chip companies. Concur with your hare and the tortoise scenario, happy with steady plodders, not looking to get rich overnight. Been there done that, not willing to go through again, housing market crashes, pound sterling plunging, Tom Yam Gung crisis (although I did benefit from it), Dot Com bubbles, stock market crashes. I am trying to insulate myself from such things, ergo willing to be defensive. Not willing to put all my eggs in one basket, hence want a diversified and spread portfolio, not wanting to be top heavy in any one sector, hence why I dont touch gold or jumping beans. I appreciate I have a conservative approach, and at times its too easy just to pour the money back into SAB Miller, etc etc, was looking for something I may have overlooked, or not even considered due to my blinkered view. By blinkered view, i mean, I aint interested in investing in some Bulgarian property Invest Trust, Ostrich farms (remember them) the Peruvian Inca Gold Invest trust. I tend to stick with the tried and tested, but am willing to step out of my comfort zone and at least consider something I may have overlooked. Thanks again.
|
|