Analysing a portfolio?

[bitchstewie]

The homework continues

I'm messing around with a few funds on paper as a "bit of a punt" where the view is keep more money in something like a LifeStrategy long term but also to put something in some funds with more risk but potentially greater returns - either way the idea is hold on for the long term.

I keep reading about diversification and overlap so used an online tool to compare the funds I'm looking at.

This excludes the lifetracker which brings in balance and bond content and is where maybe 50% of the ISA would go with the rest spread equally between these funds.

Cyclical 36.83
Basic Materials 1.93
Consumer Cyclical 22.40
Financial Services 12.33
Real Estate 0.16
Sensitive 25.27
Communication Services 0.15
Energy 0.52
Industrials 7.08
Technology 17.52
Defensive 37.91
Consumer Defensive 25.13
Healthcare 12.71
Utilities 0.07
Not Classified 0.00

Greater Europe 39.40
United Kingdom 21.10
Western Europe - Euro 13.35
Western Europe - Non Euro 4.82
Emerging Europe 0.06
Middle East / Africa 0.07
Americas 44.64
United States 44.46
Canada 0.00
Central & Latin America 0.18
Greater Asia 15.97
Japan 7.67
Australasia 0.39
Emerging 4 Tigers 0.84
Emerging Asia - Ex 4 Tigers 7.06
Not Classified 0.00

Large Value 7.03
Large Blend 14.56
Large Growth 58.58
Mid-Cap Value 2.18
Mid-Cap Blend 6.40
Mid-Cap Growth 8.69
Small Value 0.38
Small Blend 0.41
Small Growth 1.78
Not Classified 0.0

Portfolio

Category	% Long	% Short	Net Assets
Stocks	88.15	0.00	88.15
Bonds	5.47	1.14	4.33
Cash	4.15	0.33	3.83
Other	3.70	0.00	3.70
Not classified	0.00	0.00	0.00

If I look at overlap the four largest holdings each have < 3% of the total portfolio holdings.

Does anything leap out (good or bad) please?

[GT03ROB]

bhstewie said:

Greater Europe 39.40
United Kingdom 21.10
Western Europe - Euro 13.35
Western Europe - Non Euro 4.82
Emerging Europe 0.06
Middle East / Africa 0.07
Americas 44.64
United States 44.46
Canada 0.00
Central & Latin America 0.18
Greater Asia 15.97
Japan 7.67
Australasia 0.39
Emerging 4 Tigers 0.84
Emerging Asia - Ex 4 Tigers 7.06
Not Classified 0.00

Does anything leap out (good or bad) please?

High currency & US market exposures...are you happy with that?

Otherwise fairly conservative, low exposure to riskier markets.

That's my take. You saw my mix on the other thread

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[xeny]

A) I think you're overthinking this - If you're drilling down into funds, the fund manager having a change of heart could shuffle those % figures around quite easily.

B) That seems an awfully high allocation to the UK to plan into a portfolio, especially as LS has a UK bias.

[bitchstewie]

xeny said:

A) I think you're overthinking this - If you're drilling down into funds, the fund manager having a change of heart could shuffle those % figures around quite easily.

B) That seems an awfully high allocation to the UK to plan into a portfolio, especially as LS has a UK bias.

That's a fair comment but honestly I'm hoping to confirm that I'm looking at what I think I'm looking at v over-thinking it too much IYSWIM

B) is an interesting one as UK is 21% - that doesn't seem so high or have I misunderstood?

[xeny]

bhstewie said:

That's a fair comment but honestly I'm hoping to confirm that I'm looking at what I think I'm looking at v over-thinking it too much IYSWIM

B) is an interesting one as UK is 21% - that doesn't seem so high or have I misunderstood?

Asset allocations tell you something, but not everything "The map is not the territory" - I'm pretty sure I could construct a portfolio that meets those allocation figures that would perform only marginally better than me sitting in a room burning £5 notes. I'd certainly say it is worth looking at from an "am I adequately diversified" perspective, and from a "have I biased towards any regions/characteristics Iwant to" perspective, but I think it is of limited use after that.

I always think about regional asset allocation starting from Lars' persective. The UK market is (IIRC) ~3% of global equity markets. You by accident happen to live here. Yes, some goods/services prices you want to buy will be heavily driven by the UK economy, but enough to justify a factor of 7 over-weighting?

[sidicks]

xeny said:

Asset allocations tell you something, but not everything "The map is not the territory" - I'm pretty sure I could construct a portfolio that meets those allocation figures that would perform only marginally better than me sitting in a room burning £5 notes. I'd certainly say it is worth looking at from an "am I adequately diversified" perspective, and from a "have I biased towards any regions/characteristics Iwant to" perspective, but I think it is of limited use after that.

I always think about regional asset allocation starting from Lars' persective. The UK market is (IIRC) ~3% of global equity markets. You by accident happen to live here. Yes, some goods/services prices you want to buy will be heavily driven by the UK economy, but enough to justify a factor of 7 over-weighting?

I think the UK represents circa 6% of the MSCI World Index.

[xeny]

Thanks, you're correct- https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/178e6643-6ae6... gives 6.63%.

[anonymous-user]

If you invest through one of the serious platforms you will have available an analysis which "looks through" the various funds you hold and aggregates the underlying holdings, not only by geography and sector but also right down to individual companies.

So, if you have 10% of your money in Fund A and it has 10% in Shell Oil, and
You have 10% of your money in Fund B and it has 5% in Shell Oil

the analysis will tell you that you have 3% 1.5% of your money invested in Shell Oil.

(For the benefit of those of us who need help with the arithmetic, 10% of 10% plus 5% of 10% = 1.5%)

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 27th January 21:45

[stuthemong]

Sure about that maths, rockin?

I'd have thought 1.5%in your example.

Stu

[GT03ROB]

stuthe said:

Sure about that maths, rockin?

I'd have thought 1.5%in your example.

Stu

Nice catch

[sidicks]

rockin said:

If you invest through one of the serious platforms you will have available an analysis which "looks through" the various funds you hold and aggregates the underlying holdings, not only by geography and sector but also right down to individual companies.

So, if you have 10% of your money in Fund A and it has 10% in Shell Oil, and
You have 10% of your money in Fund B and it has 5% in Shell Oil

the analysis will tell you that you have 3% of your money invested in Shell Oil.

(For the benefit of those who need help with the arithmetic, 15% of 20% = 3%)

You have 1.5! in Shell (10% * 10% + 10% * 5%) !!

[sidicks]

xeny said:

A) I think you're overthinking this - If you're drilling down into funds, the fund manager having a change of heart could shuffle those % figures around quite easily.

Definitely overthinking this!

[bitchstewie]

xeny said:

I always think about regional asset allocation starting from Lars' persective.

A timely reminder that his book was in my work bag so I've been reading it and now feel suitable grounded

[xeny]

stuthe said:

Sure about that maths, rockin?

I'd have thought 1.5%in your example.

Stu

It depends which example.

10% of 10%+5% of 10% =/= 15%*of 20%

[anonymous-user]

Yup, thanks guys. Clearly 1% + 0.5% = 1.5%

Silly me trying to be helpful and set out a simple example.....



Anyway, the fundamental point remains that if you're on a serious platform they give you all this information and you don't have to work it out for yourself!