Junior ISA which funds to consider?
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:MikeKite said:
If we start with your first question.....
Because the stated objectives can be very different from actual implementation. Style drift is a very real risk as we have seen in recent years.
Furthermore, it really depends on what type of comparison you want to do, how thorough you want to make it and what you are looking to get out of it.
I would suggest some form of performance attribution would be necessary if you want to get something meaningful from it.
https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/boo...
Mike, you seem to be following a familiar pattern that financial types often do which is essentially "you're doing something terribly wrong but I'm not going to tell you what you should be doing".Because the stated objectives can be very different from actual implementation. Style drift is a very real risk as we have seen in recent years.
Furthermore, it really depends on what type of comparison you want to do, how thorough you want to make it and what you are looking to get out of it.
I would suggest some form of performance attribution would be necessary if you want to get something meaningful from it.
https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/boo...
We've had lots of "you're doing it wrong" which isn't very helpful to Mikee19 but not much of what you think he should be doing.
What would you suggest he do?
I think simply saying "put it all into a global tracker or a multi-asset fund appropriate to your appetite for risk/volatility" would be more helpful than what you've said so far.
Spent some time on Monevator.
si800 said:
800 said:Phooey said:
MikeKite is indeed an IFA,
Ah, that explains it. Thanks! I wish he'd learn to quote properly as well.
MikeKite said:
"Performance of FEET is disappointing."
From their website
"Fundsmith Emerging Equities Trust, or FEET as we like to call it, is invested using the same strategy as the Fundsmith Equity Fund"
I wonder why, given that in theory, the only difference is geography.
Is that honestly the only difference you can think of? From their website
"Fundsmith Emerging Equities Trust, or FEET as we like to call it, is invested using the same strategy as the Fundsmith Equity Fund"
I wonder why, given that in theory, the only difference is geography.
Mikee19, Its quite handy to be able to compare the performance of a number of investment trusts over differing periods of time. I wrote how to do this a couple of years ago, but PH won't let me cut and paste it in, so here's a link. Its second from the bottom of the thread:
How to compare past performance of up to ten investment trusts, unit trusts and shares over differing periods of time
How to compare past performance of up to ten investment trusts, unit trusts and shares over differing periods of time
GliderRider said:
Mikee19, Its quite handy to be able to compare the performance of a number of investment trusts over differing periods of time. I wrote how to do this a couple of years ago, but PH won't let me cut and paste it in, so here's a link. Its second from the bottom of the thread:
How to compare past performance of up to ten investment trusts, unit trusts and shares over differing periods of time
Will check this out cheers!How to compare past performance of up to ten investment trusts, unit trusts and shares over differing periods of time
Mikee19 said:
I think this is pistonheads nowadays unfortunately, a lot of trolling.
For what it's worth I don't think you'll go far wrong with any of your original choices.Fundsmith is active so is less of a "forget about it" one than the Vanguard products.
I don't work in finance I'm just someone trying to grow my money the same as you are.
MikeKite said:
si800 said:
800 said:MikeKite said:
Mikee19 said:
MikeKite said:
"Fundsmith"
Why do you think this is?
Not sure I understand you. Why do you think this is?
Terry Smith
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The timescales are too short to identify whether it is luck or genuine skill, unfortunately. The chances of persistent (more than the last decade, which has been a one-way bet for his style of investing) long-term outperferformance is pretty remote, and his returns are explainable by the tailwinds he has received to date.
"with some of the lowest volatility on offer"
Volatility is just one measure of risk - there are at least three others that apply in this case.
"Why would it NOT be popular?"
See above
"Odd comment. "
It's no really odd once you start to dig down beyond just the headline numbers.
For the OP my main fund investments (so recommendations) are..
Lindsel Train Global
Fundsmith
Rathbone Global
Vanguard LS 100
si800 said:
800 said: If you truly want to forget about it I'd suggest passive not active. Actives need some extent of monitoring to ensure you avoid a disaster (if someone had bought Woodford and "forgotten" about it they'd be in for a nasty surprise when they remembered).
I'd avoid Life Strategy due to the UK overweight which has been a clear drag on performance versus a bog standard index tracker (why would anyone want more of the dinosaur FTSE 100 companies when you have the choice not to!).
Considering the long time frame you have I'd go very simple;
70% global tracker
20% global small cap tracker (should outperform over a very long time frame, extra alpha)
10% global tech index tracker (for extra alpha)
I found this post really helpful, lots of food for thought, thank you. I'd avoid Life Strategy due to the UK overweight which has been a clear drag on performance versus a bog standard index tracker (why would anyone want more of the dinosaur FTSE 100 companies when you have the choice not to!).
Considering the long time frame you have I'd go very simple;
70% global tracker
20% global small cap tracker (should outperform over a very long time frame, extra alpha)
10% global tech index tracker (for extra alpha)
I went for 70% in L&G International Index Trust, it's passive, the fees are a fair but less than Vanguard Global (I have VG in my account) whilst looking fairly similar, it's on the HL "wealth list" too so must be great lol.
(I made my own decision and accepting my own risks)
Mikee19 said:
si800 said:
800 said: If you truly want to forget about it I'd suggest passive not active. Actives need some extent of monitoring to ensure you avoid a disaster (if someone had bought Woodford and "forgotten" about it they'd be in for a nasty surprise when they remembered).
I'd avoid Life Strategy due to the UK overweight which has been a clear drag on performance versus a bog standard index tracker (why would anyone want more of the dinosaur FTSE 100 companies when you have the choice not to!).
Considering the long time frame you have I'd go very simple;
70% global tracker
20% global small cap tracker (should outperform over a very long time frame, extra alpha)
10% global tech index tracker (for extra alpha)
I found this post really helpful, lots of food for thought, thank you. I'd avoid Life Strategy due to the UK overweight which has been a clear drag on performance versus a bog standard index tracker (why would anyone want more of the dinosaur FTSE 100 companies when you have the choice not to!).
Considering the long time frame you have I'd go very simple;
70% global tracker
20% global small cap tracker (should outperform over a very long time frame, extra alpha)
10% global tech index tracker (for extra alpha)
I went for 70% in L&G International Index Trust, it's passive, the fees are a fair but less than Vanguard Global (I have VG in my account) whilst looking fairly similar, it's on the HL "wealth list" too so must be great lol.
(I made my own decision and accepting my own risks)
The wife drips £500/mth into LS100. I am keeping her in LS100 as I personally feel the UK isn't overpriced like the US... but will probably switch the monthly DD into something a bit more global like FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF (VEVE) (0.12%+0.15% = 0.27% direct through VG) when things settle.
Edited by Phooey on Sunday 25th July 08:19
Mikee19 said:
I found this post really helpful, lots of food for thought, thank you.
I went for 70% in L&G International Index Trust, it's passive, the fees are a fair but less than Vanguard Global (I have VG in my account) whilst looking fairly similar, it's on the HL "wealth list" too so must be great lol.
(I made my own decision and accepting my own risks)
No probs at all. The poster below is correct, in that the L&G Intl Index Trust has no UK - it tracks an ex-UK index. Fidelity Index World P has the UK but no Emerging Markets - it tracks a developed world index. Basically even buying a passive tracker is a minefield, and not all trackers are created equal!I went for 70% in L&G International Index Trust, it's passive, the fees are a fair but less than Vanguard Global (I have VG in my account) whilst looking fairly similar, it's on the HL "wealth list" too so must be great lol.
(I made my own decision and accepting my own risks)
Personally speaking IF I was going passive (rather than active) I'd go for HSBC FTSE All World Index as this includes both the UK and Emerging Markets (as per the name of the fund it tracks the FTSE All World Index).
I'm suprised at the negativity around Fundsmith as despite the high charges I'm very happy with my Fundsmith investment, I have an HSBC global tracker (HMWO) rather than Vanguard as the charges are about half that of Vanguard and I don't see what extra you gain from a Vanguard global tracker.
Have a look here too - https://www.ii.co.uk/ii-super-60
Have a look here too - https://www.ii.co.uk/ii-super-60
Phooey said:
Couldn't of said it better myself. MikeKite is indeed an IFA, which I don't have a problem with, and I'm sure he is more passionate and professional about his industry than many of the standard IFA's we come across, but as bitstewie says - don't bore us with IFA waffle and links, tell us/him where YOU think he should be putting his money. Tell us WHO is better than Terry Smith - for a similar risk appetite. IMO I don't think your posts do IFA's any favours if you are just telling half the story. Tell us the bits WE want to know
It is surprising to me that after such extended membership to these pages, and specifically participation in the finance sub forum, PHers still have not grasped a basic fact:Regulated professionals CANNOT PROVIDE SPECIFICS on a public forum.
It would be a very foolish adviser indeed that responded to some of questions on these pages. Yet, many still try to help out with general commentary or signposting in a bid to provoke deeper interrogation or new directions of investigation.
I know many simply don’t bother posting anymore (certainly I rarely do) which makes PH all the poorer.
DoubleSix said:
It is surprising to me that after such extended membership to these pages, and specifically participation in the finance sub forum, PHers still have not grasped a basic fact:
Regulated professionals CANNOT PROVIDE SPECIFICS on a public forum.
It would be a very foolish adviser indeed that responded to some of questions on these pages. Yet, many still try to help out with general commentary or signposting in a bid to provoke deeper interrogation or new directions of investigation.
I know many simply don’t bother posting anymore (certainly I rarely do) which makes PH all the poorer.
If it's such a basic fact perhaps a good start would simply be to say "I'm a regulated professional so I'm limited in what I can say".Regulated professionals CANNOT PROVIDE SPECIFICS on a public forum.
It would be a very foolish adviser indeed that responded to some of questions on these pages. Yet, many still try to help out with general commentary or signposting in a bid to provoke deeper interrogation or new directions of investigation.
I know many simply don’t bother posting anymore (certainly I rarely do) which makes PH all the poorer.
I have no idea why you guys insist on all the smoke and mirrors then act surprised when people think you appear shifty.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff