AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Nov 30, 2015 13:08:46 GMT 7
A key reason I wouldn't put more into TMB Global Quality Growth is that it is around two thirds already invested in US equities (68%), then only 10% in Europe and 8% in UK. No significant Asia or Japan either. There is a way of thinking that the best way to expose oneself to equities is buying each market according to its value. That way you won't under perform the wider markets. I strongly suspect that is what the fund is doing, hence the high weighting to the US. The fund is then trying to add value by slightly outperforming in each of those markets. It's a valid approach, and doesn't require the investor (or fund manager) to predict whether Asia, Europe, Japan, the US or Emerging Markets will out perform over the next x years (or months). To put the extra weighting into Europe implies that one expect Europe to outperform the US. One may or may not be disappointed by such a decision.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Nov 30, 2015 13:20:25 GMT 7
Yes, Templeton/TMB Global Bond fund has the wider remit, but have you actually looked at the country allocation for it as shown on the TMBAM website? Mexico 19.29% South Korea 16.62% Other 12.19% Poland 10.18% Malaysia 9.87% Hungary 7.83% Brazil 6.00% Indonesia 4.84% Ukraine 4.18% Cash & Cash Equivalents 8.98% That looks extraordinarily Emerging Markets-y to me. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with close to 25% in Emerging Markets bonds at any time. (Personally, I currently hold 3.1% via SEMB, the London-listed ETF. My target allocation is 3%.) I'd also add that for asset allocation purposes I consider EM bonds to be 50% equity, 50% bond because of their characteristics.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Nov 30, 2015 13:25:58 GMT 7
In the Thai space, there isn't much in the way of bonds I like, which is why I prefer to put a bit more in global bonds at the expense of Thai bonds, but then ad more to Thai equities and a bit less to international equities. One of the problems with Thai funds is the poor documentation. In particular, it's rarely precise about how much hedging of currency risk is done. This would concern me if I were to shift away from Thai bonds to global bonds. How much currency risk am I taking on? The local bond funds don't seem any better than fixed bank deposits here (and come with more downside risk). If giving up on Thai bond funds, I would think a better solution is to leave more money in the bank, rather than take on ununderstood risk.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Nov 30, 2015 14:11:39 GMT 7
A key reason I wouldn't put more into TMB Global Quality Growth is that it is around two thirds already invested in US equities (68%), then only 10% in Europe and 8% in UK. No significant Asia or Japan either. There is a way of thinking that the best way to expose oneself to equities is buying each market according to its value. That way you won't under perform the wider markets. I strongly suspect that is what the fund is doing, hence the high weighting to the US. The fund is then trying to add value by slightly outperforming in each of those markets. It's a valid approach, and doesn't require the investor (or fund manager) to predict whether Asia, Europe, Japan, the US or Emerging Markets will out perform over the next x years (or months). To put the extra weighting into Europe implies that one expect Europe to outperform the US. One may or may not be disappointed by such a decision. Not quite sure why it's so heavily weighted to US - feels more like a US fund that they've tweaked a bit to add a few European/UK stocks to call it global. For an American I'd see a stronger argument for it. As a non-US person, the wider market performance for me shouldn't be so US dominated. I'd rather spread the risk across more markets. I would benchmark my net worth vs Asia and UK rather than US. No point me being rich in US terms if I'm poor by Thai/UK/Asian standards. Then of course there's the FX currency aspect. Again I've little interest in USD exposure as I've no natural need for it, except maybe as a store of wealth. My expenditure is THB and my home country GBP. I see my future as Thailand and at least Asia based. I also like SGD - as we've noted before it correlates better with THB. So I'd rather spread the currency risk as well, adding other geographies like Europe and Asia, to avoid becoming overly focused on US equity markets and USD. I don't really like the thinking behind weighting funds by value, to be honest. They tend to attach more importance to where money has already been made. In this case US has had a very strong run relatively in recent years, so someone would be investing in a fully valued/ overvalued market more because it has risen more. In addition although US may represent a large % of the world's stock markets by value, this reflects that they're a developed and saturated market. As a block Europe is arguably as important as US economically. To have a holding in US 7 x that of Europe is excessive to me given economic importance. Also markets like Asia have potential, precisely because their stock markets are less developed and share ownership isn't as widespread. Demand is reasonably saturated in US equity markets. There's a lot more to come in Asia, and even parts of Europe. When that demand filters into stock markets potential for growth becomes higher. So for me I wouldn't necessarily consider it putting extra into Europe (although I also think that also makes sense) if buying a Europe fund to add, just a case of not putting too much into US. I'd consider the fund overweight US by my expectations/ requirements of a global fund. Also compared to other Global funds the weighting looks high, so I don't think it's based on just values. Ball park 50% is more normal. Also if someone looked at world stock markets US isn't 2/3 s by value. Quickest source for a quick check is wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges3 main global funds I hold are: JPM Global Income/Krungrsi via Thailand www.krungsriasset.com/TH/pdf/Mkt_view_KF-INCOME_TH.pdf55% US by geography - that's probably high because of the bond element Lindsell Train Global Equity via UK www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/l/lindsell-train-global-equity-class-d-income 32% US, 27% UK, Japan 24%, Netherlands 12% Newton Global Income via UK www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/n/newton-global-income-class-w-accumulation 53% US, 16% UK, 9% Switzerland, 6% Netherlands So I think the fund is overweight US for a global fund, and too US focused
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Nov 30, 2015 15:27:11 GMT 7
Yes for Templeton it's a complicated fund in many ways and more than meets the eye. Looking at a snapshot of where it is now doesn't really reflect how they manage the fund. While it may look EM dominated now, it needs to be borne in mind 80% or so is also investment grade. The fund manager also moves where he thinks opportunities are. To get a better understanding of the fund, someone needs to look at a few points in the past, and more history, rather than just current holdings. Unfortunately google tends to bring up more recent stuff. But for example: Here's one from 2010, that mentions in 2007 the fund was 70% in mature markets www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052970203319504576019800381642940Here's a 2012, 5% weighting in Australia, 3.5% in Singapore, 5% in Ireland, all largely rotated out of now www.franklintempleton.co.za/content-campaigns/marketing-campaign/global-bond-gem/0810_cy_fmr_en.pdfFrom 2013 some interesting material on how the fund is run, www.franklintempleton.de/downloadsServlet?docid=h744egz3Having followed the fund for a few years, and been invested in the Templeton Global Bond fund for a few years, I like the diversification it brings. I like the management style and also knowing they will go where they think the opportunities are and hence it's very active style. Basically they're much better placed than me to manage bond and currency exposures so I allocate a % to it and let them get on with it, without too much worry or second guessing. Also if leaving for longer periods of time, then you know they'll actively rotate in and out as appropriate. The strategies differ, and individual countries allocations vary quite a bit between each other eg, Templeton: Mexico 19%, S.Korea 16%, Global 12%, Poland 10%, Malaysia 10% www.trustnetoffshore.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?univ=DC&fundCode=FKF62&pagetype=overviewAberdeen: Brazil 9%, Mexico 9%, Indonesia 7%, Kazakstan 5%, Russia 5% www.aberdeen-asset.co.th/doc.nsf/Lit/FactsheetThailandOpenAEOBIt's a good point though that at the moment there might appear something of a "double up" between Aberdeen and Templeton if someone classifies only as Emerging markets.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Dec 1, 2015 9:31:19 GMT 7
Yes for Templeton it's a complicated fund in many ways and more than meets the eye. Looking at a snapshot of where it is now doesn't really reflect how they manage the fund. That's one of two main reasons I personally wouldn't invest in this fund. (1) If the fund is changing its "personality" quite dramatically over time, then my exposure to asset classes will change over time. If, (for example) a few years ago I'd bought it when it was mostly US Treasuries and some high quality European debt, I'd be most bothered to find later it was now primarily Emerging Markets debt, or index linked debt, or short term debt. I already hold my full weighting of EM debt and index linked debt. I don't want, unexpectedly to go over my allocation percentage. That means this couldn't be a "buy and hold" fund. It would need regular monitoring. (That said, I do hold defensive funds which shift their allocation between equities, bonds, gold, cash, according to their view of market conditions. However, I consider these a separate asset class within my asset allocation. I implicitly trust the fund managers to make the right calls most of the time and not to take uncompensated risk.) (2) The fund takes massive short currency positions. As of the end of September it was 41.29% short in the Euro, 28.47% short JPY, and 31.52% short other European/African currencies. This pushes the risk of the fund way up; too little return for too much risk. Source: www.franklintempleton.com/forms-literature/download/406-XFLST From the same document: Which brings me to an observation: the overseas funds being offered wrapped in Thailand seem (always?) to have been selected based upon recent, short term performance. In many cases that performance has subsequently fallen off. An investor in a developed investment market would under these circumstances have the option to switch to a different fund. Given the lack of investment choice here, that's not so easily done. It's another reason why for me investment offshore is generally more attractive.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Dec 1, 2015 11:49:11 GMT 7
I guess it comes down to your strategy on (bond) funds. On the whole, globally I aim for about 15% in bonds - but am currently below that at around 10%. On the whole, for bonds, I don't particularly bother so much with the various sub-categories: index linked/ EM/ investment grade/ High Yield etc etc. I prefer to research the experts and leave that to experts to call, which is why I quite like the Templeton Fund. They have a decent track record. Although occasionally I do take views, I recognise that in most cases others are better placed. This approach is similar to how I look at UK income funds. I find the expert who knows better than me, in this case Neil Woofdord and let him get on with it. I don't try and second guess whether he's in financials, cyclicals, aggressive etc. Just give him my UK income allocation. Same with First State on Asian funds or Emerging markets, I don't try and pick the individual countries in Asia or Emerging markets. Again from time to time I do take views, on particular countries, but the core is left invested with people who I've researched and believe will do better than me. That's also one reason (of several) I research choose Thai equity funds and not individual stocks. So it's a case of what level someone wants to go down to. It's similar to my thoughts on leadership principles. Surround yourself with quality people that know more than you and empower them, rather than try and control all areas. Areas I enjoy and am strong at I like to do myself, other areas I delegate. On the other hand allocating a % to index linked bonds or Emerging markets as sectors needs thorough research and monitoring of appropriate allocations. These sub-allocations also need to change as time goes by in my view. So I'm happy to find my comfort level and leave it to someone closer to these markets than me. Most of my bond funds are strategic in nature. The only thing I really monitor and concern myself with is the overall cap of 15% and quality of the manager and funds plus performance. On currencies, similarly I spread myself across different currencies for protection. I don't take big views to make money. So I've no worries if a fund does. Actually shorting EUR and JPY make a lot of sense to me. I just wouldn't want to do it myself. Don't forget also they must be short vs something. If someone decides they want USTIPs and EM bond exposure, that likely BTW that means they are long USD. (The majority of index linked bonds globally are in US or UK with some Europe). That itself, whether recognised or not is a currency decision that has been taken. When the USD heads down again someone needs to consider this, and it will affect allocations. While someone may like EM bonds and index-linked bonds for yields, or interest rates, or credit spreads etc they must also consider the currency aspect. For your average retail investor they probably don't have the experience to allocate to particulate bond classes at particular points in time, so letting an expert get on with it is OK. I happen to see loads of info day in and out on bond markets, and although have a good grasp of risks. just have decided I don't want to put the time in at such a detailed level and it's not where my time would be best spent. Basically just comes back to comfort levels, and knowing why you're investing. People's views will differ...
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Dec 1, 2015 12:09:36 GMT 7
Which brings me to an observation: the overseas funds being offered wrapped in Thailand seem (always?) to have been selected based upon recent, short term performance. In many cases that performance has subsequently fallen off. An investor in a developed investment market would under these circumstances have the option to switch to a different fund. Given the lack of investment choice here, that's not so easily done. It's another reason why for me investment offshore is generally more attractive. Yes the choices overseas are wider. With that can also come added complexity. As such probably overseas lend themselves to more experienced investors. True that in a developed market a more experienced investor would have more options to switch to another fund. One solution though is to pick funds/ managers with wide mandates that can make those switches to the right geographies/ sectors/ asset classes for you. That's why I personally I wouldn't choose Aberdeen India, but if looking for Emerging markets I'd choose a wider Emerging markets fund. For bonds I'd go even further and give them an even wider remit. Saves me changing funds At some point in time, I'll also want to considerably simplify my investments, and spend less time on them. Bringing onshore to Thailand is one way to do that. For now I've a foot in several camps and keep my options open.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Dec 3, 2015 19:16:32 GMT 7
Good article today on Bloomberg about Templeton Global Bond Fund, which TMB's Global Bond fund feeds into I do like the guy, and as it says it sits atop of Morningstar's 10-year performance chart in its sector. His views as described make sense to me. They usually do. As he's quite high profile he often comes up in articles and his views usually make sense. Malaysian Ringgit worst performing currency this year - He's entered as he thinks it's overdone. Similarly Mexico. Negative duration on US bonds - will work well if/when rates raise. Compared to +5.99 years duration for someone buying a US bond index fund. This is exactly the sort of thing your average retail investor will struggle with. I also like its low correlation with equities. As someone myself a little concerned about impact of rising rates on bonds, the last sentence gives comfort. All in all, I'm happy entrusting him to take the right calls on part of my bond allocation, in ways that would be very difficult for me to do, and with more expertise, and that diversify nicely... ======================================================================== Templeton Bond Guru Sees Pain Coming for Complacent TradersHasenstab sees rising U.S. rates as top risk for many traders Templeton has negative duration in U.S. as Fed liftoff looms Franklin Templeton’s Michael Hasenstab says his bond-market peers aren’t prepared for higher U.S. interest rates. “A lot of investors have gotten very complacent and comfortable with the idea that there’s global deflation and you can go long rates forever,” Hasenstab, whose flagship Templeton Global Bond Fund sits atop Morningstar Inc.’s 10-year performance ranking, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “When that reverses, there will be a lot of pain in many of the bond markets.” Hasenstab, whose contrarian investment approach has delivered annualized returns of about 8 percent over the past decade, said his portfolio has a negative duration in the U.S., meaning that he’s positioned to make money from rising interest rates. He’s bullish on emerging markets, including Malaysia and Mexico, where he sees currencies that have been unfairly punished this year. The ringgit is Asia’s worst performer of 2015 with a 17 percent drop against the dollar, while the Mexican peso has weakened 11 percent. After holding its benchmark interest rate near zero for the past seven years, the Federal Reserve is widely expected to begin increasing borrowing costs this month. Treasury two-year note yields reached the highest level since 2010 on Wednesday after Fed Chair Janet Yellen said waiting too long to raise rates may hurt the economy. Two-year Treasury yields have jumped 31 basis points this quarter to 0.94 percent and are forecast to climb to 1.65 percent by the end of next year, according to a Bloomberg survey. A Bank of America Corp. gauge of price swings in U.S. sovereign debt is hovering near this year’s low, even as futures contracts show a 74 percent chance the Fed will raise interest rates on Dec. 16. The $58.8 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund returned 2 percent over the past month, putting it in the top 1 percent of its peer group and trimming this year’s loss to 1.2 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It’s average duration was minus 0.12 at the end of October, while the effective duration of the Bloomberg U.S. Treasury Bond Index is 5.99. Duration is a gauge of a bond’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Many investors “have a lot of interest-rate risk in their portfolios,” Hasenstab said. “We’ve taken a much different tack.” www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/templeton-bond-guru-sees-pain-coming-for-complacent-debt-traders
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Dec 4, 2015 9:31:52 GMT 7
Templeton Global Bond Fund is not, in my books, a bond fund at all. Its primary exposure is to the fund manager's "skills" in predicting economic changes and making bets based upon those predictions, not to bond markets. It's really more akin to a global macro hedge fund. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion. And how much "skills" has the managers shown over the last 7 and a bit years? (As far back as I could find data.) Well, let's compare the performance of the bond fund with a global bond ETF (specifically Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) with prices expressed as percentages: Attachment DeletedSo, it would appear that the answer is "not a lot". So, not only has the fund underperformed the passive ETF, it has done so with a lot more volatility. As I've opined before, in bond markets ETFs are the way to go: bond markets are too efficient for fund managers to add enough value to justify their fees*. In the case of this fund, I don't see what sensible role it would play in any rational portfolio. Furthermore, I'm disappointed that what is actually a complex investment is being marketed here in Thailand as what to most investors will appear to be a straightforward global bond fund. Irresponsible in my opinion. But then, that's hardly the first time I've thought that when considering fund products here in the Kingdom. * Skilled individuals can make money in obscure bond markets. I believe the user Naam is one of these. However, the methods used can't be scaled up enough to be used in a commercial fund.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Dec 4, 2015 10:26:17 GMT 7
It shouldn't be compared to a macro global hedge fund as it invests primarily in bonds. No equity exposure. No property exposure. No commodities etc. Quite different.
It's often overlooked by many but the main factors driving bond returns are: 1) interest rates 2) currencies 3) credit risk and credit spreads (including here also sovereign risk). Many simple bond funds focus on only long positions and maybe two of these factors. What people will have seen in recent years is that with continued low (and even negative) rates, then other variables are needed to make decent returns, after the capital gains on falling yields have already been achieved. Many traditional long only bond funds and ETFs will struggle in coming years because of their limitations in scope.
I'd suspect that the dip on the chart above includes elements such as positioning themselves a little earlier than has actually happened for FED rate rises. When that call comes to fruition though - which is inevitably a question of time - I'd expect it to pick up again. Any fund will go thru periods where they lead or lag the market. As such it's a fund for long term holdings. On a 10 year time frame, which is what we were looking at it tops its sector.
Templeton is simply a lot more active in managing interest rate risk, currencies and credit spreads than your average long only bond fund. It's still very definitely a bond fund though.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Dec 4, 2015 11:30:03 GMT 7
.... And how much "skills" has the managers shown over the last 7 and a bit years? (As far back as I could find data.) Well, let's compare the performance of the bond fund with a global bond ETF (specifically Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) with prices expressed as percentages: So, it would appear that the answer is "not a lot". So, not only has the fund underperformed the passive ETF, it has done so with a lot more volatility. As I've opined before, in bond markets ETFs are the way to go: bond markets are too efficient for fund managers to add enough value to justify their fees*. In the case of this fund, I don't see what sensible role it would play in any rational portfolio. Furthermore, I'm disappointed that what is actually a complex investment is being marketed here in Thailand as what to most investors will appear to be a straightforward global bond fund. Irresponsible in my opinion. But then, that's hardly the first time I've thought that when considering fund products here in the Kingdom. ...................... 7 Years is a bit of an odd time frame to select. I've tended to look at it over 10 years, and 5 years, so does throw up some questions to look at 7, I believe that's down to a dip in the last 2 years as mentioned. Plus the last 7 years have been odd ones in markets It is something to think about as I hadn't seen it's performance compared over 7 years before. Morningstar has data going back 15 years. I know you mentioned earlier on this thread you use defensive funds, and remember you highlighting RICA on another, and I understand the merits of that and quite like it myself. One of the things I like on forums is sharing ideas and thoughts and so RICA is something I've under consideration as it's something I'd be looking at buying thru Singapore, and still am. So out of curiousity I ran: Barclays Agg Bond (essentially the Vanguard ETF tracks this), RICA and TMB Global Bond fund (TPINX) as a compare on Morningstar, which will also adjust the currencies. I sort of expected RICA to come out on top as it has an equity allocation and over time equities in general outperform bonds. performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TPINXAs expected over 10 years both TPINX and RICA outperform the ETF or Bond Index - nothing unusual there. What surprised me though is over 10 years RICA doesn't quite match TPINX in terms of return. RICA is also more volatile. RICA, like TPINX has also struggled a bit in the last 2 years. 10 year (USD) annualised returns: TPINX: 7.61% RICA: 6.24% Barc Agg: 4.68% (NB The Vanguard ETF would be lower than this due to charges) 15 year annualised returns TPINX: 9.04% RICA: N/A Barc Agg: 5.15% (Vanguard ETF hasn't been around that long, but would have been below the index as it tracks it) So on a 10 year and 15 year instead of 7, the answer shifts from "not a lot" of value add to "significant value add". (still some questions though on 7 years . Over 5 years the ETF is slightly stronger than TPINX both 3.X% and RICA 2.7%) Compared to RICA: TPINX is less volatile than RICA with slightly higher returns. TPINX is higher in 6 out of 11 calendar years, so close call Interesting point also that RICA gets classified as "defensive", when it has 4 out of 11 calendar years (including YTD) as losses, with worst being 10% loss, yet TPINX has 3 out of 11 years as losses with worst being 3% loss, will get classified as "aggressive" relative to bond funds. Compared to ETF/Index: TPINX is More volatile, but significantly higher long term returns justifying additional fees TPINX is higher in 7 out of 11 calendar years. Interesting the index has faired better in 3 of the last 5. One has to think QE has had an impact here in driving up all asset prices, making it difficult for more selective managers to differentiate. Possible also TPINX has called a bit early on the FED rising rates too. For me therefore it would have a place in my portfolio. Particularly if I considered it's lack of correlation to and hence diversification to equities. RICA would be more correlated due to its equity exposures so less value add for diversification, and is most volatile of the three relatively I don't really like the Vanguard ETF and think it will struggle looking forward. It has no choice but to follow the index and its positive duration could be an issue and risk when it rises. At the moment given difficult and unpredictable times I prefer Strategic actively managed bond funds to low cost ETFs, although I do use both. RICA is still on my radar for Singapore. I guess all this also highlights a few things in the context of starting a portfolio: - the importance of comfort levels - how detailed you go into your funds. How active you want to be. - Why you're investing in something - What suits one person doesn't always suit another.
|
|
|
Post by realisedurgency on Dec 4, 2015 16:29:49 GMT 7
Negative duration.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Dec 4, 2015 16:55:06 GMT 7
Your posting deserves a detailed response. However, for now I'll just make a couple of quick comments. 7 Years is a bit of an odd time frame to select. It is. I used Google Finance data accessed via Google Sheets to produce the graph. That's as much history as they had available. out of curiousity I ran: Barclays Agg Bond (essentially the Vanguard ETF tracks this), RICA and TMB Global Bond fund (TPINX) as a compare on Morningstar, which will also adjust the currencies. I sort of expected RICA to come out on top as it has an equity allocation and over time equities in general outperform bonds. A question and a comment: (1) Did you convert RICA to USD to make the comparison? (And if so, how? What tool did you use? It's a pain to have to do the currency conversion myself.) (2) RICA has (in sterling) a maximum drawdown (ever) of 7.36%*. That's one of the reasons I like it. I'm not looking for (or even expecting) stellar performance. It's part of my bucket which is designed to hold up come hell or high water so that I'm not left destitute should the world's markets go to hell in a handcart. That's a very different reason from why I hold bond investments. (I hold index linked bonds as a protection against inflation; I hold Emerging Markets bonds for diversification. I don't directly hold any conventional bonds.) * I can't find a directly equivalent figure for the Templeton fund, but Templeton Global Bond Fund, Class A, after tax, load adjusted, has lost 14.42% over the last year. Source: fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/880208103
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Dec 4, 2015 19:35:52 GMT 7
For the RICA comparison click on the link and then click expand to get 10 years instead of 5. Use the compare function within Morningstar. What I also did was look at RICA in GBP terms. In GBP terms it was around 7.X % pa depending on whether you used NAV or price. So it's return in GBP terms was very similar to TPINX in USD terms. One of the currencies then needs to be brought in line with the other to compare overall returns. It then reduced to 6.X % in USD terms. As a reasonableness check I Looked at USDGBP rates over that time frame and GBP had lost vs USD henced looks reasonable to reduce in USD terms. Alternatively if had converted TPINX to sterling it would use have increased. As we're in Thailand ideally would have liked to have done both vs THB but would take time to do manually. When you say max 7.X% in GBP the diff to the USD 10% on Morningstar will likely be FX rates. In that year GBP probably depreciated vs USD so USD terms would be a higher loss. Living in Thailand looking at volatility in sterling terms raises some issues and understates risk. What happens in a crisis or bad years is there's often a flight to USD so you not only lose on the fund or security but likely depreciate in USD terms. THB has strengthened vs both USD and GBP in last 15years. So looking at volatilities in GBP terms understated them because of the FX risk element in both USD and THB terms. For the 14% Looking at the way Fidelity do it wouldn't make sense for anyone outside US. Fully loaded assumes a 4.5% initial charge. No-one in their right mind pays that if they know what they are doing. The after taxes isn't clear. They are assuming taxes on distributions I'm guessing that has a US tax rate on dividend distributions to an individual US investor given the American speak of fully loaded etc. so this is what a US investor paying US tax on a dividend paying fund paying 4.5% initial charge would end up with net. They also take a 12 month period to 30 September. Doesn't really lend itself to a comparison to the others. Someone would need to adjust so all 3 funds use the same dates. 4.5% isn't a measure of volatility on performance either just that for some people they pay an extraordinarily high fee. Sorry can't post any links and a bit disjointed. Just sat in the car on an iPad on the way to Hua Hin and had. A quick look in and tap.
|
|