|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 22, 2021 20:37:51 GMT 7
There are three few gaps in my holdings that I'm interested in seeing if they can/should be filled if anyone has any clues:
- Industrial Resource. metals and mining - Real Estate - Energy and UtilitiesAnd now that I've added US smaller companies my US allocation has increased to 38% of my holdings, I think that's OK because of the size and predominance of the US market plus my UK allocation is only 10%. Given that much of the FTSE 100 constituents has US earnings, that trade-off in geographic allocation seems reasonable. Finally, having sold LT Global I'm underweight in Japan. BG has a new Japanese fund which may be of interest so I'll take a look. The problem with Japan is that it either comes as standalone, in which case the FM has little flexibility if the going gets tough. Alternatively, it gets bundled in with Asia and I already hold 18% of Asia/Asia Pac (developed and emerging). Are these your holdings, or someone elses? Would anyone want to invest in these holdings? Try these two for size, if you are that way inclined, not for me, dont have balls of steel. www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/r/rio-tinto-plc-ordinary-10pwww.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/b/bhp-group-plc-ordinary-us$0.50I am the first to admit, there are holes in my holdings, thats by personal choice, I aint interested in anything south of the Rio Grande, woudnt touch Africa or the Middle East with a bargepole, Japan has no allure for me. For me personally, Global ITs are the way forward let someone else do the donkey work and put in the hard hours. After purchasing Martin Currie the other day, these are what I now hold. Scotish Mort Edinburgh Monks Banker Brunner Polar Capital Worldwide Healthcare Fundsmith Mid Wynd Martin Currie Global.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,133
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 23, 2021 7:27:35 GMT 7
There are three few gaps in my holdings that I'm interested in seeing if they can/should be filled if anyone has any clues:
- Industrial Resource. metals and mining - Real Estate - Energy and UtilitiesAnd now that I've added US smaller companies my US allocation has increased to 38% of my holdings, I think that's OK because of the size and predominance of the US market plus my UK allocation is only 10%. Given that much of the FTSE 100 constituents has US earnings, that trade-off in geographic allocation seems reasonable. Finally, having sold LT Global I'm underweight in Japan. BG has a new Japanese fund which may be of interest so I'll take a look. The problem with Japan is that it either comes as standalone, in which case the FM has little flexibility if the going gets tough. Alternatively, it gets bundled in with Asia and I already hold 18% of Asia/Asia Pac (developed and emerging). Are these your holdings, or someone elses? Would anyone want to invest in these holdings? Try these two for size, if you are that way inclined, not for me, dont have balls of steel. www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/r/rio-tinto-plc-ordinary-10pwww.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/b/bhp-group-plc-ordinary-us$0.50I am the first to admit, there are holes in my holdings, thats by personal choice, I aint interested in anything south of the Rio Grande, woudnt touch Africa or the Middle East with a bargepole, Japan has no allure for me. For me personally, Global ITs are the way forward let someone else do the donkey work and put in the hard hours. After purchasing Martin Currie the other day, these are what I now hold. Scotish Mort Edinburgh Monks Banker Brunner Polar Capital Worldwide Healthcare Fundsmith Mid Wynd Martin Currie Global. No, this is just me exploring possibilities in areas I've never been before, now that I've looked into them I can see there's no point going there. I have one fund that has a small holding in Rio Tinto, that's going to have to do. Question rgs: your holdings look suspiciously all look like large caps, are they? You mentioned holding Artemis US smaller companies but they don't feature on your list, are they separate? FWIW I define small caps as up to USD 2 bill, mid caps from 2 to 10 and large caps as anything bigger than 10 bill.I've started to pay more attention to different aspects of my holdings and size/capitalisation is one of those aspects.....I'm currently 22% small caps, 28% mid caps and about 50% large caps. The only problems I can see with small caps is that market conditions must be watched more closely as they seem to fall further and faster than large caps in a down market.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,133
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 23, 2021 8:10:48 GMT 7
A basic ground-up series of articles here for those either considering or in the early stages of investing, they answer lots of questions that the less experienced tend to ask.......easy reading also. I don't know when the series was written but it continues to talk about 75/25 portfolio's, a concept that has been set aside by many posters here. finance.zacks.com/asset-mix-strategy-10178.html
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 23, 2021 11:38:02 GMT 7
Are these your holdings, or someone elses? Would anyone want to invest in these holdings? Try these two for size, if you are that way inclined, not for me, dont have balls of steel. www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/r/rio-tinto-plc-ordinary-10pwww.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/b/bhp-group-plc-ordinary-us$0.50I am the first to admit, there are holes in my holdings, thats by personal choice, I aint interested in anything south of the Rio Grande, woudnt touch Africa or the Middle East with a bargepole, Japan has no allure for me. For me personally, Global ITs are the way forward let someone else do the donkey work and put in the hard hours. After purchasing Martin Currie the other day, these are what I now hold. Scotish Mort Edinburgh Monks Banker Brunner Polar Capital Worldwide Healthcare Fundsmith Mid Wynd Martin Currie Global. No, this is just me exploring possibilities in areas I've never been before, now that I've looked into them I can see there's no point going there. I have one fund that has a small holding in Rio Tinto, that's going to have to do. Question rgs: your holdings look suspiciously all look like large caps, are they? You mentioned holding Artemis US smaller companies but they don't feature on your list, are they separate? FWIW I define small caps as up to USD 2 bill, mid caps from 2 to 10 and large caps as anything bigger than 10 bill.I've started to pay more attention to different aspects of my holdings and size/capitalisation is one of those aspects.....I'm currently 22% small caps, 28% mid caps and about 50% large caps. The only problems I can see with small caps is that market conditions must be watched more closely as they seem to fall further and faster than large caps in a down market. CM, poor wording on my part, the global ITs i refer to above are the way they are listed on my stockbroker report, my other holding are listed on page one of this thread. Heres a quick breakdown of my holdings, Chemicals 8.5% (Croda) UK Invest 3.5% (Blackrock smaller) USA 2.5% (Artemis fund managers) Europe 8.0% (BG Europe/Fidelity European) Emerg Mkts 4.0% (JP Morgan EM) Global 73.0% Thats as of today, it could change tomorrow depending on markets.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 23, 2021 11:39:47 GMT 7
A basic ground-up series of articles here for those either considering or in the early stages of investing, they answer lots of questions that the less experienced tend to ask.......easy reading also. I don't know when the series was written but it continues to talk about 75/25 portfolio's, a concept that has been set aside by many posters here. finance.zacks.com/asset-mix-strategy-10178.htmlLooks like an article aimed at American audiences, not a point of view I subscribe to, but what do i know.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 23, 2021 11:48:24 GMT 7
Looks like an article aimed at American audiences, not a point of view I subscribe to, but what do i know. My verdict was rather less conciliatory: an article written for the clueless by the clueless. So, I guess you're right "aimed at American audiences".
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,133
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 23, 2021 12:04:59 GMT 7
Once again AyG you think that everyone has expert knowledge like you do, you forget that everyone has to start somewhere! The article is in fact a series of articles which is many pages long. For someone who is just starting to understand investing, and we've had more than a few of such people on the forum, including me, there's more than a few good explanations including allocations to small/medium/large caps which I found useful. So what if it's written by an American, the rules for investing are pretty much the same there as anywhere else plus he's a fairly successful writer according to his bio and he does get the message across without using jargon etc.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,133
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 24, 2021 5:54:37 GMT 7
Some interesting blurb about IT's vs UT's & OEIC's etc....it seems the rate of take on of IT's by UK IFA's has been very slow, lots of reasons why have been cited but the two main ones are that: - IT's don't pay commissions, and - IT's can't be xrayed for risk using existing software in the same way conventional funds can, this means IFA's can't complete the clients' FCA risk documentation which is extensive and often onerous. Other reasons include: - “It's that generally they have higher risk than the equivalent unit trust due to discount or premium on the investment trust share price vs net asset value.” - increased risk resulting from gearing - lack of contact with asset managers - platform incompatibility, lack of inertia and lack of knowledge. Personally, I'm going with the first two reasons. Fortunately, things have improved in recent years and use of them is increasing. www.ftadviser.com/investments/2020/02/04/why-advisers-avoid-investment-trusts/
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 24, 2021 7:30:13 GMT 7
^^^
That trusts don't pay commission is an old reason. These days funds don't pay commission either. Has been that way since the RDR in 2012.
One important reason missing from the article is that most individual IFAs don't choose what to invest in. They will have a small number of standard model portfolios and clients will be bought funds according to one of the model portfolios. Sometimes the model portfolios are devised in house (typically in larger firms), but often the modelling is outsourced.
Anyway, what this means is that if something is added to a model portfolio it will be bought by large numbers of clients. The way trusts work isn't suitable for sudden, massive purchases.
In practice, some IFAs do use investment trusts, but restrict themselves to ones with a market capitalisation of at least GBP 100-200 million because of the liquidity issue.
"Fortunately, things have improved in recent years and use of them is increasing." Personally I see it as a bad thing. Discounts have narrowed significantly, making bargains harder to find. It was nice to get the dividends from GBP 100 worth of shares for only GBP 80.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,133
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 24, 2021 7:52:03 GMT 7
The point about not being able to Xray IT's using existing software is, I think, an important issue. Without that ability, it's hard for the average person to accurately see how a particular IT fits into an existing portfolio in respect of geography, sectors, capitalisation etc. The HL platform does an excellent job of Xray'ing funds and bonds but offers almost nothing regarding IT's. I've just had to do a manual exercise to work out the geographic allocation of the IT's I hold to see their impact on the rest of my holdings and it's laborious effort.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 25, 2021 19:43:28 GMT 7
Some interesting blurb about IT's vs UT's & OEIC's etc....it seems the rate of take on of IT's by UK IFA's has been very slow, lots of reasons why have been cited but the two main ones are that: - IT's don't pay commissions, and - IT's can't be xrayed for risk using existing software in the same way conventional funds can, this means IFA's can't complete the clients' FCA risk documentation which is extensive and often onerous. Other reasons include: - “It's that generally they have higher risk than the equivalent unit trust due to discount or premium on the investment trust share price vs net asset value.” - increased risk resulting from gearing - lack of contact with asset managers - platform incompatibility, lack of inertia and lack of knowledge. Personally, I'm going with the first two reasons. Fortunately, things have improved in recent years and use of them is increasing. www.ftadviser.com/investments/2020/02/04/why-advisers-avoid-investment-trusts/Take care that you dont end up on a wild goose chase, or end up chasing white rabbits down holes.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 25, 2021 19:47:32 GMT 7
^^^ That trusts don't pay commission is an old reason. These days funds don't pay commission either. Has been that way since the RDR in 2012. One important reason missing from the article is that most individual IFAs don't choose what to invest in. They will have a small number of standard model portfolios and clients will be bought funds according to one of the model portfolios. Sometimes the model portfolios are devised in house (typically in larger firms), but often the modelling is outsourced. Anyway, what this means is that if something is added to a model portfolio it will be bought by large numbers of clients. The way trusts work isn't suitable for sudden, massive purchases. In practice, some IFAs do use investment trusts, but restrict themselves to ones with a market capitalisation of at least GBP 100-200 million because of the liquidity issue. "Fortunately, things have improved in recent years and use of them is increasing." Personally I see it as a bad thing. Discounts have narrowed significantly, making bargains harder to find. It was nice to get the dividends from GBP 100 worth of shares for only GBP 80. Box tickers, inhouse they usually have about 5 (at the most). Cast my mind back to those bastards at Barclays Wealth, nothing but an incestous company that only wanted to push their own products, I was well shot of them.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Jan 25, 2021 20:38:51 GMT 7
The point about not being able to Xray IT's using existing software is, I think, an important issue. Without that ability, it's hard for the average person to accurately see how a particular IT fits into an existing portfolio in respect of geography, sectors, capitalisation etc. The HL platform does an excellent job of Xray'ing funds and bonds but offers almost nothing regarding IT's. I've just had to do a manual exercise to work out the geographic allocation of the IT's I hold to see their impact on the rest of my holdings and it's laborious effort. I mentioned recently about offloading a couple of stocks and investing in BG Europe, and JP Emerg Markets, I quote, from my stockbroker, Neither Baillie Gifford European Growth Trust nor JP Morgan Emerging Markets are names that currently feature on our recommended lists.FFS. I can get better advice on here, thanks lads.
|
|
chiangmai
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,133
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by chiangmai on Jan 26, 2021 6:27:07 GMT 7
It would be good if you were to ask him what he recommends in place of JPM EM, it's hard for me to imagine there's much else around that beats it.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 26, 2021 8:09:34 GMT 7
I quote, from my stockbroker, Neither ... nor JP Morgan Emerging Markets are names that currently feature on our recommended lists.I'm rather inclined to agree with your stockbroker (assuming this is referring the investment trust). This has been one of my long, long time holdings. Its performance has been very solid over the years, so I've not paid it much attention. Your stockbroker's comment made me have a closer look. It's very different from what it was 10, or even 5 years ago, despite having had the same manager. Now it's much more concentrated (52 holdings) and much more tech-heavy. The top three holdings are: - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 9.9% - Tencent Holdings7.7% - Alibaba Group Holding 6.4% Back in 2015 they were: - Housing Development Finance 4.9% - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 3.8% - AIA 3.4% I doubt very much that I'd buy it today, but given what a great performer it's been, I won't sell it just yet, either.
|
|